Skip to main content
Glama
YawLabs

@yawlabs/aws-mcp

Official
by YawLabs

aws_iam_simulate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Simulate IAM permissions to verify if a principal can perform specific actions on resources, preventing 403 errors by testing policies before execution.

Instructions

Simulate IAM permissions for a principal: can principal X do actions Y on resources Z? Wraps iam simulate-principal-policy. Returns one entry per (action, resource) pair with decision (allowed / explicitDeny / implicitDeny / unknown -- unknown is the malformed-response fallback when EvalDecision is missing or unrecognised), matchedStatementIds (which IAM statements decided), and missingContextValues (context keys the policy needed but you didn't provide -- common for tag-based policies). Use this BEFORE a risky operation to avoid a 403; pairs with the post-failure Suggestion you get from aws_call. Requires iam:SimulatePrincipalPolicy on the caller.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
principalArnYesARN of the principal whose policies you want to evaluate, e.g. 'arn:aws:iam::123456789012:user/jeff' or 'arn:aws:iam::123456789012:role/my-role'.
actionsYesIAM action names to test, e.g. ['lambda:CreateFunction', 's3:GetObject']. 1-50 entries. Wildcards (e.g. 's3:*') are accepted.
resourcesNoResource ARNs to test against, e.g. ['arn:aws:s3:::my-bucket/*']. When omitted, AWS applies its own default of ['*'] server-side (best-case 'is this action ever allowed?') -- this tool does not inject a ['*'] itself.
contextEntriesNoContext keys for policies that depend on request context -- 'aws:RequestTag/Project' = 'foo', etc. Provide when the policy you're testing references condition keys; the response's `missingContextValues` will tell you which ones it wanted.
profileNoOverride session profile for this call.
regionNoOverride session region for this call (IAM is global; affects API endpoint).
timeoutMsNoTimeout in milliseconds. Default 60000.
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations, explaining the return format (decision types including 'unknown' as a fallback), matched statements, and missing context values. It does not contradict annotations; instead it enriches understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 concise, well-structured, and front-loaded. Every sentence provides critical information without redundancy. It efficiently covers purpose, usage, response details, and prerequisites.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity with 7 parameters and no output schema, the description provides complete context: usage guidance, permission requirements, response structure, edge cases (unknown decision), and parameter semantics. It fully equips an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 meaning beyond the input schema, such as explaining that when resources are omitted, AWS defaults to ['*'] server-side and that this tool does not inject ['*']. It also clarifies the purpose of contextEntries and ties it to missingContextValues in the response.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Simulate IAM permissions for a principal: can principal X do actions Y on resources Z?' It uses a specific verb (simulate) and resource (IAM permissions), and distinguishes from sibling tools like aws_call by focusing on pre-execution checking.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this BEFORE a risky operation to avoid a 403') and provides a sibling alternative ('pairs with the post-failure Suggestion you get from aws_call'). It also notes the required IAM permission, giving clear guidance.

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/YawLabs/aws-mcp'

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