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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws User Access Map

aws_user_access_map
Read-onlyIdempotent

Map ElastiCache users, groups, and caches from AWS Describe calls to surface RBAC risks such as broad permissions, unattached groups, default users, and caches without groups.

Instructions

RBAC map from Describe* calls: users x groups x caches. Findings first: ~* +@all users, unattached groups, enabled default user, no-password users in live groups, Memcached groups, caches without a group.

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_user_access_map"
  }
}

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/open-world, so the description's job is to add context — and it does: it discloses that results are aggregated from Describe* calls (implying broad read permissions and multi-call latency) and that findings are surfaced before raw data. It does not mention rate limits, permission requirements, or whether the map is paginated, which keeps it below 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Two dense clauses, front-loaded with the core purpose, then the prioritized findings. The findings list is jargon-heavy ('~* +@all users', 'Memcached groups') and packs six items into one sentence, which trades readability for compactness but every item carries information.

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 exists, so return structure needn't be explained, but the description leaves gaps for a multi-API aggregation tool: it never states which service's RBAC model (ElastiCache users/groups), permission prerequisites, or how to interpret the enumerated findings. Adequate to invoke, thin for interpretation.

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?

One parameter with 100% schema coverage, including its regex pattern and default to AWS_REGION, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about region behavior or what happens when region is omitted; baseline 3 applies given full coverage and an output schema.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: builds an 'RBAC map' from 'Describe* calls' across users, groups and caches, and enumerates the finding types it surfaces. The axes are clear enough to distinguish it from narrower siblings like aws_user_groups, though the description never names those siblings explicitly and 'caches' is left implicit as ElastiCache.

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 through the 'Findings first' list, which signals this is a security/posture review tool. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus aws_user_groups or aws_security_audit, and no prerequisites or exclusions.

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