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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Subnet Groups

aws_subnet_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect ElastiCache subnet groups to check VPC subnets and Availability Zone spread, and flag groups spanning fewer than two AZs.

Instructions

DescribeCacheSubnetGroups: VPC, subnets and AZ spread (flags groups in fewer than 2 AZs).

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_subnet_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoAWS region; defaults to AWS_REGION

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, open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds a useful derived-output behavior (AZ-spread flagging) beyond the annotations, but says nothing about region resolution, pagination, or result size.

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 tight sentence with the resource description front-loaded and the diagnostic flag called out. The 'DescribeCacheSubnetGroups:' API-name prefix is somewhat redundant jargon but costs little.

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?

An output schema and full annotations exist, so the description only needs to frame intent. It is adequate for a simple read-only regional describe call, but the meaning of the AZ flag in the output is left under-specified.

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?

Only one optional parameter (region) and schema coverage is 100%, with the AWS_REGION default documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

Names the underlying operation (DescribeCacheSubnetGroups) and states the concrete payload: VPC, subnets, and AZ spread, plus a derived flag for groups in fewer than 2 AZs. An agent can tell what data comes back, though it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as aws_global_replication_groups or aws_cache_clusters.

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?

The parenthetical about flagging groups in fewer than 2 AZs implies the use case (AZ/HA coverage checks), but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative among the many aws_* audit siblings.

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