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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws Triage

aws_triage
Read-onlyIdempotent

Summarize an ElastiCache replication group's incident status and worst-first findings: Multi-AZ/failover, recent events, per-member CloudWatch peaks, pending updates, and snapshot age.

Instructions

One-call incident summary for a replication group: status, Multi-AZ/failover, 6h events, CloudWatch peaks per member, pending updates, snapshot age. Findings worst-first (max 30); a failing section is reported unavailable.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "replication_group_id": "<replication_group_id>"
    },
    "name": "aws_triage"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoAWS region; defaults to AWS_REGION
replication_group_idYesReplicationGroupId to triage

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is lower, yet the description still adds real behavior: findings returned worst-first, capped at 30, and a failing section degrades to "unavailable" rather than aborting. It does not state auth/permission requirements or latency expectations, which would push this to a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single dense sentence, front-loaded with the tool's identity, followed by the contents and then the output-shaping rules (worst-first, max 30, degradation). No filler.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Output schema, full annotations, and 100% param coverage mean the description needn't explain return values or inputs; it still discloses scope and the 6h window plus degradation behavior. Missing only explicit guidance on choosing this over the narrower sibling audits.

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%, so both parameters (region defaulting to AWS_REGION, replication_group_id) are already documented. The description adds no parameter-level detail, which is acceptable given the complete schema but earns only the baseline.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ("One-call incident summary for a replication group") and enumerates the exact contents: status, Multi-AZ/failover, 6h events, CloudWatch peaks per member, pending updates, snapshot age. That inventory distinguishes it from point tools like aws_failover_readiness or aws_replication_group_audit without naming them.

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?

"One-call incident summary" implies the incident-triage context and that it aggregates what siblings report separately, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. An agent must infer that deeper single-topic audits exist elsewhere.

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