Skip to main content
Glama
code-alchemist01

MCP Cloud Services Server

check_compliance

Verify cloud infrastructure meets security compliance standards like CIS, SOC2, PCI-DSS, and HIPAA across AWS, Azure, and GCP providers.

Instructions

Check compliance with security standards (CIS, SOC2, etc.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerYesCloud provider
standardNoCompliance standardgeneral

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler logic for the 'check_compliance' tool. It extracts the standard parameter, constructs a ComplianceCheck object with sample findings, and returns a formatted response using Formatters.formatComplianceCheck.
    case 'check_compliance': {
      const standard = (params.standard as string) || 'general';
    
      const complianceCheck: ComplianceCheck = {
        provider,
        standard,
        compliant: false,
        findings: [
          {
            rule: 'Encryption at rest enabled',
            status: 'fail',
            description: 'Some resources do not have encryption enabled',
          },
          {
            rule: 'Public access restricted',
            status: 'warning',
            description: 'Some resources may have public access',
          },
          {
            rule: 'MFA enabled',
            status: 'pass',
            description: 'Multi-factor authentication is configured',
          },
        ],
        score: 65,
      };
    
      return Formatters.formatComplianceCheck(complianceCheck);
    }
  • The tool schema definition for 'check_compliance', including name, description, and inputSchema specifying required 'provider' and optional 'standard'.
    {
      name: 'check_compliance',
      description: 'Check compliance with security standards (CIS, SOC2, etc.)',
      inputSchema: {
        type: 'object',
        properties: {
          provider: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['aws', 'azure', 'gcp'],
            description: 'Cloud provider',
          },
          standard: {
            type: 'string',
            enum: ['cis', 'soc2', 'pci-dss', 'hipaa', 'general'],
            description: 'Compliance standard',
            default: 'general',
          },
        },
        required: ['provider'],
      },
    },
  • src/server.ts:19-27 (registration)
    Registration of all MCP tools by combining arrays from various modules, including securityTools which contains the 'check_compliance' tool schema.
    const allTools = [
      ...awsTools,
      ...azureTools,
      ...gcpTools,
      ...resourceManagementTools,
      ...costAnalysisTools,
      ...monitoringTools,
      ...securityTools,
    ];
  • src/server.ts:76-77 (registration)
    Tool call dispatching logic that routes requests for security tools (matching names in securityTools) to the handleSecurityTool function.
    } else if (securityTools.some((t) => t.name === name)) {
      result = await handleSecurityTool(name, args || {});
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool performs a 'check' which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires special permissions, what the output format might be, whether it's resource-intensive, or if there are rate limits. For a compliance 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's appropriately sized for a tool with two parameters and clear purpose, front-loading the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's moderate complexity (compliance checking across providers/standards), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the domain but lacks details on what the check entails, what results to expect, or how it differs from related security tools. The schema covers parameters well, but behavioral context is insufficient for confident agent use.

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%, with both parameters ('provider' and 'standard') fully documented in the schema with enums and defaults. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, such as explaining the 'general' standard option or how different providers affect the check. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 as 'Check compliance with security standards' and specifies examples like CIS and SOC2. It uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource domain (compliance/security standards), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'check_encryption' or 'scan_security_issues' which might overlap in the security domain.

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 when this compliance check is appropriate compared to other security tools like 'check_encryption' or 'scan_security_issues', nor does it specify prerequisites, timing considerations, or exclusions. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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/code-alchemist01/Cloud-mcp_server'

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