Retrieves AWS security playbooks and guidance directly from the AWS Customer Playbook Framework repository, providing access to incident response procedures and preventive security measures for AWS services.
Click on "Install Server".
Wait a few minutes for the server to deploy. Once ready, it will show a "Started" state.
In the chat, type @ followed by the MCP server name and your instructions, e.g., "@AWS Customer Playbook Advisor MCP show me the S3 ransomware incident response playbook"
That's it! The server will respond to your query, and you can continue using it as needed.
Here is a step-by-step guide with screenshots.
※ このリポジトリは非公式のものであり、クローンしてもらって試してもらっても良いですが責任は負いません。
AWS公式のAWS Customer Playbook Frameworkリポジトリを活用して、リアルタイムでAWSセキュリティガイダンスを提供するModel Context Protocol (MCP)サーバーです。
AWS Customer Playbook Advisor MCPは、Claude Desktopユーザーが自然言語でAWSセキュリティのベストプラクティス、インシデント対応プレイブック、予防的セキュリティ対策にアクセスできるようにします。このサーバーはAWSの公式リポジトリから最新のセキュリティプレイブックを動的に取得し、常に最新のセキュリティガイダンスを提供します。
Related MCP server: AWS Documentation MCP Server
動的なプレイブック取得: AWS公式GitHubリポジトリから直接セキュリティプレイブックを取得
スマートなコンテンツ抽出: プレイブックから要約や予防ガイダンスを自動抽出
サービス固有のガイダンス: S3、IAM、EC2、RDSなどのAWSサービスに特化したセキュリティアドバイスを提供
キャッシング: パフォーマンス最適化のための5分間キャッシュを実装
認証不要: パブリックなGitHub APIエンドポイントを使用
get_aws_playbookシナリオキーワードに基づいて特定のAWSセキュリティプレイブックを取得します。
パラメータ:
scenario (必須): セキュリティシナリオまたはサービス名（例: "s3", "iam", "ransomware"）
playbook_name (オプション): 取得する特定のプレイブック名
使用例:
"S3セキュリティのAWSプレイブックを取得して"
"ランサムウェアインシデント対応プレイブックを表示して"get_prevention_guidance特定のAWSサービスの予防的セキュリティガイダンスを提供します。
パラメータ:
service (必須): AWSサービス名（例: "S3", "IAM", "EC2", "RDS", "VPC", "SES", "SageMaker", "Bedrock"）
使用例:
"S3の予防対策を教えて"
"IAMのセキュリティベストプラクティスを表示して"list_available_playbooksAWSリポジトリから利用可能なすべてのセキュリティプレイブックをリストします。
使用例:
"利用可能なAWSセキュリティプレイブックをすべてリストして"
"どのようなプレイブックが利用できますか？"Node.js 18以上
npmまたはyarn
Claude Desktop
リポジトリをクローン:
git clone https://github.com/yourusername/aws-customer-playbook-advisor-mcp.git
cd aws-customer-playbook-advisor-mcp依存関係をインストール:
npm installプロジェクトをビルド:
npm run buildClaude Desktopを設定:
以下をClaude Desktopの設定ファイルに追加します：
macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Claude/claude_desktop_config.json
Windows: %APPDATA%\Claude\claude_desktop_config.json
{
"mcpServers": {
"aws-security-advisor": {
"command": "node",
"args": ["/path/to/aws-customer-playbook-advisor-mcp/dist/index.js"]
}
}
}Claude Desktopを再起動
設定が完了したら、Claude Desktop内でAWSセキュリティアドバイザーと対話できます：
特定のプレイブックを取得: 「S3データ漏洩に対処するAWSプレイブックを表示して」
予防ガイダンス: 「AWS IAMのセキュリティベストプラクティスは何ですか？」
リソースをリスト: 「どのようなセキュリティプレイブックが利用できますか？」
インシデント対応: 「AWSでランサムウェア攻撃に対応する方法は？」
aws-customer-playbook-advisor-mcp/
├── src/
│ └── index.ts # メインサーバー実装
├── dist/ # コンパイル済みJavaScript出力
├── package.json # プロジェクト設定
├── tsconfig.json # TypeScript設定
└── manifest.json # MCPマニフェストファイル# 依存関係をインストール
npm install
# プロジェクトをビルド
npm run build
# 開発モードで実行
npm run dev言語: TypeScript
ランタイム: Node.js (ES2022モジュール)
プロトコル: Model Context Protocol (MCP)
主要依存関係: @modelcontextprotocol/sdk
コントリビューションを歓迎します！イシューやプルリクエストをお気軽に提出してください。
MITライセンス - 詳細はLICENSEファイルを参照してください。
このプロジェクトはAWSが管理する公式のAWS Customer Playbook Frameworkを活用しています。すべてのセキュリティプレイブックとガイダンスはこのリポジトリから取得されています。
このツールは情報提供を目的としてAWSセキュリティプレイブックへのアクセスを提供します。セキュリティガイダンスは常に公式のAWSドキュメントで確認し、重要なセキュリティ決定についてはセキュリティ専門家に相談してください。
AWS公式プレイブックフレームワークから最新のセキュリティプレイブックを取得します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scenario | Yes | セキュリティシナリオ（例: s3, iam, ransomware, compromised, public_access等） | |
| playbook_name | No | 特定のプレイブック名（オプション） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden but provides minimal behavioral context. It mentions retrieving 'latest' playbooks which implies freshness, but doesn't disclose authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, response format, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is insufficient.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient Japanese sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for the tool's apparent complexity and front-loads the core functionality.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
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 incomplete. It doesn't explain what format the playbooks are returned in, whether there's pagination, error handling, or authentication requirements. Given the security context and lack of structured metadata, more behavioral disclosure would be expected.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's already in the schema (which has 100% coverage). It doesn't explain the relationship between 'scenario' and 'playbook_name', provide additional examples, or clarify edge cases. With complete schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('取得します' - retrieves) and resource ('AWS公式プレイブックフレームワークから最新のセキュリティプレイブック' - latest security playbooks from AWS official playbook framework). It distinguishes from 'list_available_playbooks' by specifying retrieval of actual content rather than listing, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'get_prevention_guidance' which might provide different types of guidance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the sibling tools 'get_prevention_guidance' or 'list_available_playbooks'. It doesn't specify prerequisites, constraints, or alternative scenarios where other tools would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
AWSサービスの予防的セキュリティガイダンスを公式プレイブックから取得します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| service | Yes | AWSサービス名（例: S3, IAM, EC2, VPC, RDS等） | |
| question | No | 具体的な質問（オプション） |
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 retrieves guidance from official playbooks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., guidance format, structure, or examples), nor does it address behavioral traits like authentication or error handling. For a tool with no structured metadata, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the input schema, which has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters ('service' and optional 'question'). Since schema coverage is high, the baseline score is 3, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract from the schema's documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: '取得します' (retrieves) '予防的セキュリティガイダンス' (preventive security guidance) from '公式プレイブック' (official playbooks) for AWS services. It specifies the resource (AWS preventive security guidance) and source (official playbooks), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aws_playbook' or 'list_available_playbooks' beyond mentioning 'preventive' guidance.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 its siblings ('get_aws_playbook', 'list_available_playbooks'). It doesn't specify use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
利用可能なAWSセキュリティプレイブックの一覧を取得します
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
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 only states what the tool does (retrieves a list) without mentioning any behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or response format. This is inadequate for a tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or fluff. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned list contains (e.g., format, structure, or fields), behavioral aspects like safety or side effects, or how it differs from siblings. For a tool with no structured data support, this leaves significant gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema description coverage is 100% (as there are no parameters to describe). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, so a baseline score of 4 is appropriate, as it doesn't introduce confusion or redundancy.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('AWSセキュリティプレイブックの一覧' - list of AWS security playbooks), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_aws_playbook' or 'get_prevention_guidance', which prevents a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 the sibling tools 'get_aws_playbook' or 'get_prevention_guidance'. It lacks any context about alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage from tool names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
The tools have some overlap in purpose, as all three retrieve AWS security playbooks or guidance, making them potentially confusing. However, descriptions help differentiate them: get_aws_playbook fetches a specific playbook, get_prevention_guidance focuses on preventive guidance, and list_available_playbooks lists available options. This reduces ambiguity but doesn't eliminate it entirely.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case: get_aws_playbook, get_prevention_guidance, and list_available_playbooks. The verbs 'get' and 'list' are clear and predictable, with no deviations in style or convention across the set.
With only 3 tools, the count feels thin for a server focused on AWS security playbooks, as it may lack operations like creating, updating, or deleting playbooks. However, it's reasonable for a read-only advisory service, though it borders on being under-scoped for typical agent workflows.
The tool surface is significantly incomplete for the domain of AWS security playbook management. It only supports retrieval and listing operations, with no tools for creating, updating, or applying playbooks. This will likely cause agent failures when trying to perform full lifecycle management, leaving obvious gaps in coverage.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
The AWS Knowledge MCP server is a fully managed remote Model Context Protocol server that provides real-time access to official AWS content in an LLM-compatible format. It offers structured access to AWS documentation, code samples, blog posts, What's New announcements, Well-Architected best practices, and regional availability information for AWS APIs and CloudFormation resources. Key capabilities include searching and reading documentation in markdown format, getting content recommendations, listing AWS regions, and checking regional availability for services and features.
AWS cloud security scanners for AI agents — S3, IAM, EC2, EKS, RDS, CloudTrail, CloudWatch Logs
SOAR security playbooks for AI agents: fetch, full-text search, and count. Metered via Stripe.
EU compliance corpus across 8 frameworks (NIS2, DORA, AI Act, ISO 27001 + more) via MCP.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/eisuke000111/aws-customer-playbook-advisor-mcp'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server