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

aws-security-mcp

by jowhee327
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

scan_defender_assessment_findings

Scan Azure Defender for Cloud assessment findings to identify security posture issues; read-only and does not modify cloud resources.

Instructions

Run Defender for Cloud Assessment Findings (Azure, 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_defender_assessment_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

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does state 'Read-only' plus no modification of AWS resources. That reassurance is oddly scoped for an Azure scanner, and it omits cost/time characteristics, credential requirements, and whether findings are persisted.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action and provider. The trailing 'Does not modify any AWS resources' is the weakest line — it is slightly off-target for an Azure tool but still acts as a safety signal.

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?

No output schema and no annotations mean the description must cover return behavior, and it says nothing about what findings look like or whether results are stored. The input side is well covered by the schema, so the gap is concentrated on results and credentials.

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% and the provider enum text already explains region semantics per cloud (including the Azure subscription-ID meaning and AZURE_CLOUD switch). The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, 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 names a specific verb+resource ('Run Defender for Cloud Assessment Findings') and scopes it to Azure with an experimental flag, which lets an agent distinguish it from the many AWS-oriented scan_* siblings. It does not explicitly contrast with the closest sibling (scan_security_hub_findings), so it stops short of full differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The word 'only' and the '(Azure, experimental)' tag imply this is the dedicated Azure Defender assessment scanner, so usage is inferable. However, there is no explicit statement of when to choose it over scan_security_hub_findings or scan_all, nor any prerequisite (Azure credentials) mentioned in the description.

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