cloud-audit-mcp

List checks

list_checks

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists AWS security-posture checks with IDs, titles, severity, service, and descriptions to help you choose relevant audits.

Instructions

The catalog of security-posture checks with id, title, severity, service and description.

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": "list_checks"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`checks`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the notion of a 'catalog' (complete, unfiltered enumeration), which is mildly useful behavioral context, but the field enumeration largely restates the output schema.

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?

A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and the returned fields listed after. It is efficient, though it reads as a noun fragment rather than a verb-led statement of action.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail need not be explained, and with empty input and rich annotations there is little left to disclose. The only meaningful gap is the lack of any usage routing relative to the five sibling tools.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the schema carries no semantics to compensate for and the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty input object.

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 states the resource ('security-posture checks') and the exact fields returned ('id, title, severity, service and description'), so an agent knows it is a read-only catalog rather than an execution tool. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like run_check or run_all_checks, but the noun 'catalog' implicitly separates discovery from execution.

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?

There is no when-to-use statement, no prerequisite or exclusion, and no mention of alternatives. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the discovery step before run_check/run_all_checks, which is left entirely to convention.

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

Deploy Server