Skip to main content
Glama
cloud-audit-mcp

cloud-audit-mcp

by Avinash9694

Describe resource

describe_resource
Read-onlyIdempotent

Look up an AWS resource by ARN, ID, or name to retrieve its normalized shape and the security findings that reference it.

Instructions

Looks up one resource by ARN, id or name and returns its normalised shape plus the findings that reference it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "arnOrId": "<arnOrId>"
    },
    "name": "describe_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
arnOrIdYesAn ARN, a resource id (sg-…, vol-…), a bucket, user or trail name, or "<kind>:<id>".

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes
arnYes
kindYes
foundYes
regionYes
resourceYes
relatedFindingsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description still adds real value by disclosing the result content — a normalised resource shape plus related findings — which tells the agent this is a richer lookup than a raw fetch.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and scope, followed by the return payload. Nothing is wasted and there is no redundancy across sentences.

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?

With a fully documented single parameter, full annotation coverage, and an output schema, the description supplies nearly everything needed. Minor gaps remain around not-found or ambiguous-identifier behavior, but for a simple read lookup this is close to complete.

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% and the single arnOrId parameter is thoroughly documented in the schema, including accepted formats. The description restates the same formats without adding new semantics, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb ("looks up") and names the resource and lookup keys (ARN, id, name), and it says what comes back (normalised shape plus referencing findings). Siblings (whoami, list_checks, run_check, summarize_posture) are clearly different operations, though the description never explicitly contrasts itself with them.

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: an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting a single known resource, but the description never states when to prefer it over siblings, nor what to do if the identifier is ambiguous or unknown. No exclusions or alternative-routing guidance are given.

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