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

aws-security-mcp

by jowhee327
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

scan_config_compliance_findings

Run read-only configuration compliance scans across AWS and supported cloud providers to identify misconfigurations and review security findings without changing resources.

Instructions

Run Config Compliance Findings (Alibaba Cloud, experimental) security scanner only. Read-only. Does not modify any AWS resources.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "scan_config_compliance_findings"
  }
}

Input 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). With alicloud (EXPERIMENTAL — not yet validated against a live account), region is an Alibaba Cloud region ID (e.g. cn-hangzhou); omit or "all" to scan every region; single-account only in this phase. With azure (EXPERIMENTAL — not yet validated against a live account), the China cloud (21Vianet) is the default; set AZURE_CLOUD=global for public cloud. region is an Azure subscription ID; omit or "all" to scan every visible subscription.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.10.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations present, the description does carry the safety burden and does disclose read-only, non-mutating behavior and the experimental status of the Alibaba Cloud path — genuinely useful context. However it omits permissions/credentials needed, whether scanning is synchronous or long-running, and what the findings output looks like for a tool with no output schema. The closing claim about not modifying "AWS resources" is also confusing given the stated Alibaba Cloud focus.

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?

Three short front-loaded sentences with no filler; the read-only guarantee appears early. Minor deduction because "security scanner only" and the gratuitous AWS reference in a nominally Alibaba Cloud tool add ambiguity rather than information.

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?

This is a multi-provider scan tool with no annotations and no output schema, so the description must explain what the scan produces and how it differs from the roughly ten other scan_* tools. Instead it provides only a safety note and a provider hint, leaving the agent unable to predict results, runtime, or scope.

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% and the provider enum description already documents region semantics per provider (including omit/"all" behavior), so the description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies, and the description's Alibaba-only framing slightly undercuts rather than reinforces the schema's four-provider semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a verb ("Run") and a scanner ("Config Compliance Findings"), but scopes it oddly to "Alibaba Cloud, experimental" when the input schema documents four providers with AWS as the default. It also does not distinguish this tool from close siblings such as scan_config_rules_findings, scan_rms_compliance_findings, or scan_patch_compliance_findings, so an agent cannot confidently select it on name alone.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no mention of which provider or region scenarios this scanner is intended for versus the many other scan_* siblings. The word "only" implies a restriction but never says what is excluded or what the alternative is.

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