get_remediationCompute a remediation plan for a threat or finding without applying it (dry run). Runs Aribot's governed remediation checks and returns the proposed steps.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| rule_id | Yes | Policy/rule id (e.g. AWS_S3_PUBLIC_ACCESS) | |
| threat_id | Yes | Threat id/code to remediate | |
| resource_context | Yes | The cloud resource: provider, resource_id (required), region, account_id, metadata |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / resource_context / descriptionPrevious value: -"provider/resource_id/region/account_id/metadata"New value: +"The cloud resource: provider, resource_id (required), region, account_id, metadata"Input schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "threat_id",
- "rule_id"
-]New value: +[
+ "threat_id",
+ "rule_id",
+ "resource_context"
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by confirming the dry-run semantics and noting that it runs governed checks and returns proposed steps, though it says nothing about cost, latency, or failure modes.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the non-destructive qualifier. No filler or restatement of the title.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description does note that it returns proposed steps, which covers the return intent. For a 3-required-param tool with a nested resource_context object, it is adequate given the schema already documents inputs in full.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (rule_id, threat_id, resource_context) are already documented in the schema, including the nested resource_context fields. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (compute), resource (remediation plan), and scope (for a threat or finding, dry run). The phrase 'without applying it' immediately distinguishes it from the apply_remediation sibling without needing to name it.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
Clear context for use: to preview remediation steps for a threat or finding before committing. The dry-run qualifier implicitly routes the agent away from apply_remediation, but the sibling is never named and no explicit when-not guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.