Skip to main content
Glama

azure_generate_security_report

Generate comprehensive security assessment reports from Azure scan results. Supports quick (4 tools) or full (40 tools) scan with compliance and remediation details.

Instructions

ENHANCED v1.14.0 Generate comprehensive security assessment report from scan results. NEW: fullScan parameter now runs ALL 40 security tools (was 34)! Quick scan (default) runs 4 core tools. Comprehensive scan (fullScan: true) runs ALL 40 tools including: Storage (with SAS+WORM), NSG (with service endpoints+LB), SQL (PostgreSQL/MySQL/Redis), KeyVault, VMs, CosmosDB, ACR, AKS, RBAC, Service Principals (RBAC-based), Managed Identities (with federation), Function Apps (with Event Grid/Service Bus), Backup Security (with ASR), VNet Peering, Private Endpoints, Diagnostic Settings, Defender Coverage, Policy Compliance, and more. Produces executive summary, risk prioritization, findings by severity (CRITICAL/HIGH/MEDIUM/LOW), remediation matrix, compliance mapping (CIS/NIST). Supports PDF, HTML, CSV, JSON export.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
subscriptionIdYesAzure subscription ID to report on
resourceGroupNoOptional: Filter by specific resource group
formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (default), 'json', 'html', 'pdf', or 'csv'
outputFileNoOptional: Save report to file (e.g., C:\\reports\\security-report.pdf)
fullScanNoRun comprehensive scan using all 40 security tools (v1.14.0: +6 new tools including Backup, VNet Peering, Private Endpoints, Diagnostic Settings, Defender, Policy). Default: false for quick 4-tool scan. Includes: VMs, AKS, ACR, CosmosDB, RBAC, Managed Identities, Public IPs + core scans + new v1.14.0 enhancements
includeRemediationNoInclude detailed remediation guidance (default: true)
includeComplianceNoInclude compliance framework mapping (default: true)
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Describes outputs (executive summary, findings, etc.) and formats. Does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., cost, time, permissions) beyond what it does. Could be more transparent about operational impact.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Description is long and detailed, using bold and lists effectively. While informative for a complex tool, it could be more concise. Front-loads version and main purpose. Justified length but not optimal for quick scanning.

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 complexity (7 params, no output schema), description adequately explains what the tool produces (executive summary, findings by severity, remediation, compliance) and output formats. Could clarify how report is returned (e.g., file path, inline), but overall complete for a security report generator.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but description adds significant context beyond schema: explains that fullScan runs 40 tools versus 4 for quick scan, provides examples for outputFile, and details what 'comprehensive' includes. Enhances understanding of parameter behavior.

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?

Description clearly states 'generate comprehensive security assessment report', distinguishes quick vs full scan, and lists many specific tools included. Differentiates from sibling tools which are focused on individual analyses.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit guidance on when to use quick scan (default) vs full scan (fullScan: true). Implicitly contrasts with specific sibling tools by offering a comprehensive overview. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but context is clear.

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/h4cd0c/stratos-mcp'

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