Skip to main content
Glama

list_security_groups

Retrieve AWS security group configurations to manage network access controls and review firewall rules for EC2 instances and VPC resources.

Instructions

Lists all security groups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
vpc_idNoOptional: Filter by VPC ID.

Implementation Reference

  • Handler function that executes the list_security_groups tool by calling DescribeSecurityGroupsCommand on EC2 client, optionally filtering by VPC ID, and returns formatted security group list.
    if (name === "list_security_groups") {
        const vpcId = (args as any)?.vpc_id;
        const filter = vpcId ? [{ Name: "vpc-id", Values: [vpcId] }] : undefined;
    
        const command = new DescribeSecurityGroupsCommand({ Filters: filter });
        const response = await ec2Client.send(command);
    
        const sgs = response.SecurityGroups?.map(s => ({
            GroupId: s.GroupId,
            GroupName: s.GroupName,
            Description: s.Description,
            VpcId: s.VpcId
        })) || [];
    
        return { content: [{ type: "text", text: JSON.stringify(sgs, null, 2) }] };
  • src/index.ts:340-348 (registration)
    Registration of the list_security_groups tool in the ListToolsRequestHandler, including its description and input schema.
    {
        name: "list_security_groups",
        description: "Lists all security groups.",
        inputSchema: {
            type: "object",
            properties: {
                vpc_id: { type: "string", description: "Optional: Filter by VPC ID." }
            }
        }
  • Input schema definition allowing optional vpc_id parameter.
        vpc_id: { type: "string", description: "Optional: Filter by VPC ID." }
    }
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. While 'Lists' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't disclose important behavioral aspects like whether this returns all security groups across all regions/VPCs, whether results are paginated, what format the output takes, or any rate limits or authentication requirements.

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 extremely concise - a single sentence that states exactly what the tool does with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and contains no unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain what information is returned about security groups, how results are structured, whether there are limitations on what's returned, or how this differs from the similar 'list_open_security_groups' tool. The minimal description leaves too many unanswered questions for effective tool selection.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single optional parameter (vpc_id). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, resulting in the baseline score of 3.

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 action ('Lists') and resource ('all security groups'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'list_open_security_groups' - both appear to list security groups, making the differentiation unclear.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With a sibling tool called 'list_open_security_groups' that likely serves a similar purpose, there's no indication of when to choose one over the other, nor any context about prerequisites or typical use cases.

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/bhaveshopss/MCP-server'

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