Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-elasticache-ops

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Service Updates

aws_service_updates
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves pending ElastiCache service updates by status and severity, including apply-by and auto-update dates, to help plan maintenance windows.

Instructions

DescribeServiceUpdates: pending updates by severity with apply-by and auto-update dates.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "aws_service_updates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoAWS region; defaults to AWS_REGION
statusNoUpdate statusavailable

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the payload (severity, apply-by and auto-update dates), but since an output schema exists, this overlaps with structured data rather than adding new behavioral context such as scope limits or pagination.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero padding, which is well sized for a two-parameter read tool. The leading "DescribeServiceUpdates:" label partially restates the tool name and consumes space without adding meaning.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With full schema coverage, annotations and an output schema, most of the burden is carried by structured fields, and the description correctly focuses on what the data represents. However, it leaves the reader without any routing guidance among the many sibling audit/maintenance tools, which is the main gap for a tool in this crowded a family.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% across both parameters, so region and status are fully documented in the schema. The description's "pending updates" nudges toward the status filter but adds no format or semantics beyond what the schema already states, making baseline 3 appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a specific verb and resource ("DescribeServiceUpdates") and states the returned content: pending updates with severity, apply-by and auto-update dates. It is clear on its own but draws no boundary against adjacent siblings such as aws_maintenance or aws_upgrade_plan, so an agent must guess which one to pick.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the phrase "pending updates" – an agent can infer this is the tool for checking outstanding service updates awaiting action. There is no explicit when-to-use, no exclusion of cancelled/expired review scenarios, and no mention of alternative tools for maintenance or upgrade planning.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools