cloud-audit-mcp

Summarise posture

summarize_posture

Read-onlyIdempotent

Counts security findings by severity and service, lists the top five risks, and scores an AWS account from 0–100 to prioritize remediation.

Instructions

Counts findings by severity and service, lists the top five risks and scores the account 0–100.

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": "summarize_posture"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	Yes
`grade`	Yes
`score`	Yes
`topRisks`	Yes
`accountId`	Yes
`byService`	Yes
`bySeverity`	Yes
`totalFindings`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it aggregates across the whole account and enumerates the three outputs it produces, which is useful, but it says nothing about cost, data freshness, or whether the score is configurable.

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 sentence with zero filler that front-loads the aggregation behaviour and then the concrete outputs. Every clause earns its place.

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 no inputs, a full output schema, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description only needs to convey scope and result shape, which it does. The minor gap is that 'the account' is never defined and no usage context is given.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. No misleading parameter-like language is present.

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 names a specific verb and resource — counts findings by severity/service, ranks top five risks, and produces a 0–100 account score. That is far more concrete than the siblings (whoami, list_checks, run_check, run_all_checks, describe_resource), which all run or enumerate checks rather than aggregate them, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no reference to the sibling tools. Usage is only implied: as a zero-parameter rollup that 'scores the account', it is evidently the post-scan summary step after run_check/run_all_checks, but the agent must infer that sequencing.

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

Deploy Server