cloud-audit-mcp

Run one check

run_check

Read-onlyIdempotent

Run a single AWS security check by ID to retrieve every finding it produces, enabling targeted audits of S3, EC2, RDS, IAM, or CloudTrail resources.

Instructions

Runs a single check by id and returns every finding it produced.

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": {
      "checkId": "<checkId>"
    },
    "name": "run_check"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checkId`	Yes	Id from list_checks, e.g. "s3-public-bucket".

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`check`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`findingCount`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description contributes the useful fact that all findings are returned rather than a summary, but says nothing about execution latency or cost of an open-world check.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the action and the result are both stated immediately.

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 an output schema covering return values, rich annotations covering safety, and a fully documented single parameter, the description is nearly complete. The only gap is guidance on selection versus run_all_checks.

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 parameter description already states the id comes from list_checks with an example, so the description cannot add much. It mentions 'by id' without contributing syntax or format detail beyond the schema.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Runs a single check by id') and adds the return behavior ('returns every finding it produced'). The word 'single' implicitly contrasts with run_all_checks, so an agent can mostly tell the two apart, though the sibling is never named.

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: 'single check by id' signals targeted execution versus a bulk run, but the description never states when to prefer this over run_all_checks or what prerequisites (a valid id from list_checks) are required.

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

Deploy Server