cloud-audit-mcp

Who am I

whoami

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identifies the current caller, AWS account ID, region, and operating mode (fixture or AWS) so you can verify context before running security-posture checks.

Instructions

Caller identity, account id, region and whether the server is in fixture or aws mode.

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": "whoami"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`arn`	Yes
`mode`	Yes
`region`	Yes
`userId`	Yes
`readOnly`	Yes
`accountId`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds context beyond them: it reveals the server can run in 'fixture' or 'aws' mode, which tells the agent whether other tool results reflect mock data or a real environment. That is meaningful behavioral context not encoded in annotations.

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 telegraphic sentence with zero waste, and the most important element (caller identity) is front-loaded. Nothing to trim and nothing repeated from structured fields.

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 present, the description need not enumerate return values, and with zero parameters there is no input surface to explain. Annotations carry the safety profile. What remains is the absence of explicit usage guidance, which keeps it just short of full completeness.

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 baseline is 4. The description correctly implies no input is needed; nothing about parameters is missing or misleading.

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 the specific resource returned: caller identity, account id, region, and server mode (fixture vs aws). This is clearly distinguishable from the check/posture-oriented siblings (list_checks, run_check, summarize_posture). It lacks a verb, but the noun phrase is specific enough that an agent knows exactly what it gets back.

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 or when-not-to-use statement, and no sibling is named as an alternative. However, the tool is a zero-parameter identity probe whose purpose implies its usage: call it when you need to know which account/region the server is operating against. Implied usage only, no exclusions.

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

Deploy Server