Amazon VPC Lattice MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation3/5
The tools have some overlap but descriptions help clarify distinctions. 'get_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts' and 'get_source_prompts' both retrieve prompts but target different entities (templates vs. sources), while 'list_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts' and 'list_sources' similarly list different items. The 'vpc_lattice_cli' tool stands apart for CLI execution, but the prompt-related tools could cause mild confusion without careful reading.
Naming Consistency4/5
The naming is mostly consistent with a verb_noun pattern, using 'get_' and 'list_' prefixes clearly. However, 'vpc_lattice_cli' deviates by omitting a verb and using a compound noun, breaking the pattern. The other four tools follow a predictable convention, making this a minor inconsistency.
Tool Count3/5
With 5 tools, the count is borderline for the server's purpose of managing Amazon VPC Lattice prompts and sources. It feels slightly thin, as it covers listing and getting prompts/sources and CLI execution, but might lack operations like creating, updating, or deleting prompts, which could limit functionality. The scope is reasonable but not fully fleshed out.
Completeness2/5
There are significant gaps in the tool surface for managing Amazon VPC Lattice prompts. The server only provides read operations (get and list) for prompts and sources, along with CLI execution, but lacks create, update, or delete tools. This incomplete CRUD coverage will likely cause agent failures when full lifecycle management is needed, as agents cannot modify or add new prompts or sources.
Average 3/5 across 5 of 5 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'execute' which implies mutation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like which commands are destructive (e.g., delete-*), authentication needs, error handling, or output format. This is a significant gap for a CLI tool with potentially destructive operations.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, clearly stating the tool's function without unnecessary details.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (4 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and a wide range of commands including destructive ones), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on safety, output, error cases, or how to interpret results, making it inadequate for effective tool use.
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 the schema fully documents parameters. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain parameter relationships, command-argument mappings, or usage examples. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Execute AWS CLI VPC Lattice commands' states the action (execute) and target (AWS CLI VPC Lattice commands), but is vague about what VPC Lattice is and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like get_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts or list_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts. It provides a basic purpose but lacks specificity about the resource domain.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools, prerequisites like AWS credentials, or typical use cases. Usage is implied only through the command enum in the schema, not in the description itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Get details') without mentioning any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'details' include. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation coverage, as it leaves key operational aspects undefined.
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?
The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function, earning its place without waste.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what 'details' are returned, how errors are handled, or any behavioral context. For a tool that retrieves specific data, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its full operation and output.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'prompt_name' clearly documented as 'Name of the prompt template to get'. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose as 'Get details of a specific prompt template', which includes a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('prompt template'). However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_source_prompts' or 'list_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts', which likely involve similar resources but different scopes or operations.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, prerequisites, or specific contexts for usage, leaving the agent to infer based on the tool name alone. This lack of explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use information reduces clarity.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool does but doesn't describe behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it requires authentication, rate limits, error handling, or what format the 'sample prompts' are returned in. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely retrieves data.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and output format, which are important for effective tool invocation in a broader context with sibling tools.
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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'source_name' clearly documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by implying the parameter is used to identify a source, but it doesn't provide additional context like valid source names or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
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 clearly states the action ('Get sample prompts') and the target resource ('for a specific source'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts' or 'list_sources', which appear to be related to similar domains but have different scopes or functions.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'list_sources' (which might list sources before selecting one) or 'get_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts' (which seems source-specific), leaving the agent to infer usage context without explicit direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List all available prompt templates' implies a read-only operation, it doesn't specify whether this requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or details the format of the output. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the tool has 0 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness. It doesn't explain what 'prompt templates' are, how they're structured, or what the output looks like, which could hinder an agent's ability to use this tool effectively in context with siblings.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't discuss parameters, earning a baseline score of 4 for not adding unnecessary information beyond what the schema provides.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all available prompt templates'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts' or 'get_source_prompts', which likely retrieve specific prompts rather than listing all templates.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts' (which might retrieve specific prompts) or 'list_sources' (which might list different resources), leaving the agent without context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool lists sources with URLs and sample prompts, which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if this requires authentication, how data is returned (e.g., pagination, format), or any rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
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?
The description is a single, efficient sentence: 'List all available sources with their URLs and sample prompts.' It is front-loaded with the core action and includes no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured.
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?
Given that there are no parameters and no output schema, the description provides a clear purpose but lacks details on behavioral aspects like authentication, return format, or error handling. For a simple list tool, this might be adequate, but without annotations or output schema, it doesn't fully prepare an agent for invocation, leaving room for improvement in completeness.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, meaning there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, so it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist, and the description doesn't attempt to explain non-existent inputs.
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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'List all available sources with their URLs and sample prompts.' It specifies the verb ('List'), resource ('available sources'), and what information is included ('URLs and sample prompts'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'get_source_prompts' or 'list_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts', which might have overlapping functionality.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'get_source_prompts' and 'list_amazon_vpc_lattice_prompts' available, there is no indication of when this tool is appropriate, what prerequisites might be needed, or any exclusions for its use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

amazon-vpc-lattice-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

[![amazon-vpc-lattice-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rlymbur/amazon-vpc-lattice-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rlymbur/amazon-vpc-lattice-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![amazon-vpc-lattice-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rlymbur/amazon-vpc-lattice-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/rlymbur/amazon-vpc-lattice-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rlymbur/amazon-vpc-lattice-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server