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

mcp-elasticache-ops

by ritojoao
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Aws User Groups

aws_user_groups
Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists ElastiCache user group members, attached replication groups or serverless caches, and pending changes to support access and configuration audits.

Instructions

DescribeUserGroups: members, attached replication groups/serverless caches, pending changes.

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_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

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content detail by listing memberships, attachments, and pending changes, but it does not mention permissions, pagination, or result limits.

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?

The description is a single compact line with the API action front-loaded and the included data categories listed immediately after. The fragment style is very terse, but there is no wasted wording.

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?

For a simple read-only describe/list tool with an output schema and a fully documented single parameter, the description supplies the key content categories an agent needs. It is not fully complete because it lacks usage routing and pagination context, but those are relatively minor here.

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?

The single region parameter is fully documented in the schema, including its default behavior and pattern. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the high schema coverage sets the baseline at 3.

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 the underlying DescribeUserGroups action and enumerates what the view includes: members, attached replication groups/serverless caches, and pending changes. The resource and scope are identifiable, but it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings such as aws_user_access_map.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description states what the tool returns but gives no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative-tool guidance. An agent must infer that this is the tool for inspecting user groups rather than being routed explicitly.

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