aws-security-mcp

scan_inspector_findings

Scan cloud regions for Inspector security findings to identify issues and review results without modifying any resources.

Instructions

Run Inspector Findings 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_inspector_findings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`region`	No	AWS region to scan (default: server region)
`provider`	No	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). 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.

Changed2 schema fields changedv0.10.0Nov 8, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / provider / description

Previous value: -"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)."New value: +"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). 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."

changedInput schema / properties / provider / enum

Previous value: -[
-  "aws",
-  "huaweicloud"
-]New value: +[
+  "aws",
+  "huaweicloud",
+  "alicloud",
+  "azure"
+]

Changed1 schema field changedv0.9.0Sep 15, 2026

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"
+}

First observedv0.7.6Jun 7, 2026

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 burden, and it does disclose the most important trait: read-only, no resource modification. However, it says nothing about required credentials/permissions, scan duration, pagination, or that the underlying tool actually supports huaweicloud/alicloud/azure per the schema — the "AWS resources" phrasing undersells multi-cloud behavior.

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 immediately followed by the safety profile; there is no wasted wording. It is terse to the point of omitting return-shape information, but that is a completeness issue rather than a structure flaw.

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?

The parameters are thoroughly documented in the schema, but for a scanner with no output schema the description never says what comes back (finding list, counts, severity breakdown) or what happens with multi-region/multi-cloud scans. An agent knows how to call it but not what to expect from the result.

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 parameter is fully documented with per-cloud region semantics, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, which is the baseline 3 case.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run Inspector Findings security scanner") and adds the scope limiter "only", which distinguishes it from the many other scan_* siblings in spirit. It does not name a particular sibling or explain the relationship to aggregate tools like scan_all or scan_and_report, keeping it short of a 5.

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" implies this tool should be chosen when the agent wants Inspector findings exclusively, but no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance is given against the ~30 sibling scanners. The agent must infer routing from the tool name alone.

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

Deploy Server