Skip to main content
Glama
jowhee327

aws-security-mcp

by jowhee327
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

scan_access_analyzer_findings

Scan AWS IAM Access Analyzer findings to identify active external access and unused permissions. Read-only security check supports AWS and Huawei Cloud regions.

Instructions

Run Access Analyzer Findings security scanner only. Read-only. Does not modify any AWS resources.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNoAWS region to scan (default: server region)
providerNoCloud provider to scan (default: aws). With huaweicloud, `region` is a Huawei Cloud region ID (e.g. cn-north-4); omit it or pass "all" to scan every region project of the account. Huawei Cloud Phase 1 is single-account (org_mode falls back to the current account with a warning).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / provider
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Cloud provider to scan (default: aws). With huaweicloud, `region` is a Huawei Cloud region ID (e.g. cn-north-4); omit it or pass \"all\" to scan every region project of the account. Huawei Cloud Phase 1 is single-account (org_mode falls back to the current account with a warning).",
+  "enum": [
+    "aws",
+    "huaweicloud"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv0.7.6

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 states 'Read-only' and 'Does not modify any AWS resources,' which covers safety expectations. However, it does not disclose output format, whether it scans a single region or all regions, or any other behavioral details beyond read-only safety.

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?

The description is brief and front-loaded with the main action. The sentence 'Read-only' and 'Does not modify any AWS resources' are somewhat redundant, but the overall structure is efficient and free of filler.

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?

For a read-only scanner with two optional parameters fully described in the schema, the description is mostly adequate. However, with no output schema, the description does not clarify what the scanner produces or how results are presented, leaving a notable gap for a tool that returns findings.

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 input schema already documents region and provider with clear descriptions, including Huawei Cloud specifics. The description itself adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb with resource ('Run Access Analyzer Findings security scanner') and scopes it with 'only,' distinguishing it from the many sibling scanner tools. It clearly identifies what the tool does, although it could further explain what Access Analyzer Findings are.

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 explicit guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like scan_security_hub_findings, scan_guardduty_findings, or scan_all. 'Only' implies a narrow scope, but the description does not name alternatives or provide conditions for selection, leaving usage largely to inference.

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