Skip to main content
Glama
Brucedh

AWS‑IReveal‑MCP

accessanalyzer_get_finding

Retrieve detailed JSON information about a specific AWS IAM Access Analyzer finding by providing region, analyzer ARN, and finding ID.

Instructions

Retrieve detailed information about a single finding.

Parameters:
    aws_region (str): The AWS region - use 'us-east-1' if not specified.
    analyzer_arn (str): The ARN of the analyzer.
    finding_id (str): The ID of the finding to retrieve.

Returns:
    str: JSON-formatted details of the finding.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
aws_regionYes
analyzer_arnYes
finding_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool(), implementing the tool logic to retrieve a specific IAM Access Analyzer finding using the AWS boto3 SDK. The function parameters define the input schema via type annotations and docstring.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def accessanalyzer_get_finding(
        aws_region: str,
        analyzer_arn: str,
        finding_id: str
    ) -> str:
        """
        Retrieve detailed information about a single finding.
    
        Parameters:
            aws_region (str): The AWS region - use 'us-east-1' if not specified.
            analyzer_arn (str): The ARN of the analyzer.
            finding_id (str): The ID of the finding to retrieve.
        
        Returns:
            str: JSON-formatted details of the finding.
        """
        client = boto3.client('accessanalyzer', region_name=aws_region)
        response = client.get_finding(analyzerArn=analyzer_arn, id=finding_id)
        finding = response.get('finding', {})
        return json.dumps(finding, indent=2, cls=DateTimeEncoder)
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'retrieves' information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'detailed information' includes beyond the return statement. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is well-structured and appropriately sized. It starts with a clear purpose statement, then lists parameters with brief explanations, and ends with return information. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (3 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return format. The output schema existence means the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it could benefit from more behavioral context (e.g., error handling). It's adequate but not exhaustive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds substantial meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains each parameter's purpose: 'aws_region' with a default value hint, 'analyzer_arn' as the ARN of the analyzer, and 'finding_id' as the ID to retrieve. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of descriptions, providing clear semantic context for all three parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Retrieve detailed information about a single finding.' It uses a specific verb ('retrieve') and identifies the resource ('single finding'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like 'accessanalyzer_list_findings' or 'guardduty_get_findings', which would require a 5.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'accessanalyzer_list_findings' for listing multiple findings or 'guardduty_get_findings' for similar functionality in a different service. There's no context about prerequisites or when-not-to-use scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Brucedh/aws-ireveal-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server