Amazon SageMaker Well-Architected MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

validate_all_endpoints

Scans all SageMaker endpoints in a region and returns aggregated Well-Architected findings across six pillars, highlighting issues and recommendations.

Instructions

Validate all SageMaker endpoints in a region against Well-Architected pillars.

    Scans all endpoints in the specified region and returns aggregated findings
    across all six Well-Architected pillars.

    Args:
        ctx: MCP context
        region_name: AWS region name (default: us-east-1)
        profile_name: AWS profile name (optional)

    Returns:
        ValidateAllResponse with aggregated findings

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`region_name`	No	AWS region name. Default is us-east-1.	us-east-1
`profile_name`	No	AWS profile name. If not provided, uses the default profile.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`content`	Yes	Response content
`isError`	No	Whether this is an error response
`summary`	Yes	Aggregated findings summary by pillar
`findings`	Yes	List of all findings
`total_findings`	Yes	Total number of findings
`resources_validated`	Yes	List of validated resource names

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description states the core behavior: scanning all endpoints and returning aggregated findings across six pillars, implying a read-only operation. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the behavioral burden, but it does not mention AWS permission needs, potential API call volume, pagination, or failure behavior. This is adequate but not rich.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose and uses a structured docstring format. However, the Args and Returns sections largely duplicate information already available in the input schema and output schema, making it longer than necessary.

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?

The description covers the essential operation, scope, and return shape, and the output schema exists to define the response. It is incomplete in one important way: it does not clarify how this tool relates to validate_all_resources or when to choose one over the other, which is a notable gap given the 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both region_name and profile_name already have descriptions and defaults in the input schema. The description's Args section repeats this information without adding semantic depth beyond what the schema provides.

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?

The description states a specific verb ('Validate'), a specific resource ('all SageMaker endpoints'), a scope ('in a region'), and a framework ('Well-Architected pillars'). It clearly differentiates from single-resource validation tools by emphasizing 'all endpoints' and aggregated findings.

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 usage context is implied: it is for validating every endpoint in a region rather than a single resource. However, the description does not explicitly distinguish this from the sibling tool validate_all_resources, nor does it state when an agent should prefer one over the other.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server