Skip to main content
Glama
jowhee327

aws-security-mcp

by jowhee327
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

scan_waf_coverage

Identify AWS WAF coverage gaps across regions and cloud providers. Read-only scanner returns risk scoring without modifying resources.

Instructions

Run WAF Coverage 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and 'Does not modify any AWS resources,' which directly reassures an agent about safety. However, it does not mention other behavioral aspects like output format or whether it makes network calls, though the read-only guarantee is the most critical trait.

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?

The description is three short sentences, each carrying useful information: the action, the read-only nature, and the no-modification guarantee. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words.

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 tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate: it states what it does and that it is safe. However, it does not indicate what the scanner returns, how the results are presented, or any prerequisites such as AWS credentials or permissions. These gaps leave an agent guessing about the tool's full behavior.

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 schema fully documents both parameters (region, provider) including the enum and provider-specific behavior. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: 'Run WAF Coverage security scanner only.' The word 'only' clearly distinguishes it from broader scanners like scan_all and the other scan_* siblings. This makes the tool's scope unmistakable even without opening the schema.

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 description implies usage for WAF coverage scanning through the explicit 'only' phrasing, but it never explicitly states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as scan_all or scan_security_hub_findings. There is no mention of exclusions or conditions that would route an agent to a sibling tool.

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