Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
aws-security-mcp

aws-security-mcp

by jowhee327
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

generate_html_report

Generate professional HTML security reports from AWS scan results, including optional trend charts and AI executive summary.

Instructions

Generate a professional HTML security report. Save the output as an .html file.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "scan_results": "<scan_results>"
    },
    "name": "generate_html_report"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
langNoReport language (default: zh)
historyNoJSON string of DashboardHistoryEntry[] from dashboard data.json for 30-day trend charts
ai_summaryNoOptional pre-generated AI executive summary (Markdown/plain text). Rendered if present; omit to hide.
scan_resultsYesJSON string of FullScanResult from scan_all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.7.6

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only mentions generation and saving. It lacks details on output location, file overwrite behavior, permissions, or any side effects beyond file creation.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no redundancy. Could be improved with more context, but it is appropriately concise.

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?

Given 4 parameters and no output schema, the description does not explain how parameters affect the report, what the report contains, or dependencies like requiring prior scan results. Important gaps remain.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond the schema definitions, which already describe each parameter adequately.

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 generates a professional HTML security report and saves as .html file, specifying the output format. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like generate_mlps3_html_report, which also produces HTML.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus other report generators (e.g., generate_report, generate_maturity_report). No prerequisites or context for invocation are provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools