Skip to main content
Glama
jowhee327

aws-security-mcp

by jowhee327

scan_iam_privilege_escalation

Scan AWS IAM configurations to detect privilege escalation risks. This read-only security check identifies vulnerable policies without modifying any resources.

Instructions

Run IAM Privilege Escalation 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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly discloses 'Read-only' and 'Does not modify any AWS resources', which are key behavioral traits for a security scanner. It could add more (e.g., permissions, result format), but the core safety guarantee is transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Two short sentences front-load the purpose and the read-only guarantee. There is no wasted wording; every sentence is functional.

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?

For a read-only scanner with two optional, well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description provides sufficient core context. It could mention relationships to sibling scanners, but the purpose and safety behavior are clearly covered.

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 both parameters (region, provider) have detailed descriptions in the schema. The main tool description adds no parameter-level 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 states a specific verb ('Run'), a specific resource ('IAM Privilege Escalation security scanner'), and adds 'only' to narrow scope. It is clear and unambiguous, but it does not explicitly name or contrast sibling tools, so it stops short of full sibling 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?

Use is implied: run this when you want IAM privilege escalation scanning. The word 'only' hints it is not for other scan types, but it does not name alternatives like scan_all or scan_and_report, nor give explicit conditions or exclusions.

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