wazuh-mcp

File integrity monitoring findings

wazuh_fim_findings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve file integrity monitoring data for an agent to inspect monitored files and registry keys, their hashes, permissions, and change counts, answering binary modification or /etc changes.

Instructions

Query File Integrity Monitoring (syscheck) state for an agent: which monitored files and registry keys exist, their hashes, permissions and how many times they have changed. Use it to answer 'was this binary modified' or 'what changed in /etc'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`offset`	No
`search`	No	Substring match on the path, e.g. 'ssh'.
`agent_id`	Yes	Agent ID, e.g. '001'.
`file_path`	No	Exact monitored path, e.g. '/etc/passwd'.
`entry_type`	No	Restrict to files or Windows registry entries.
`hash_value`	No	Find entries by md5, sha1 or sha256 digest.
`changed_only`	No	Only entries that have changed at least once since baseline.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it queries current state, which is consistent with the annotations but does not reveal additional behaviors such as rate limits or error conditions.

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 two sentences long, front-loads the purpose, and provides practical examples without unnecessary detail or repetition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description is complete for the tool's scope: it identifies the resource (FIM findings), the target (agent), the returned data categories, and typical use cases. Since an output schema exists, return-value details are not required for completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 75%, so many parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds clarifying examples and semantics (e.g., 'ssh' substring for search, exact monitored path, md5/sha1/sha256 digests, 'changed at least once since baseline'), which enriches parameter understanding beyond the base schema.

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 clearly states the tool queries File Integrity Monitoring state for an agent, listing what information is returned (files, registry keys, hashes, permissions, change count). It also gives concrete use cases ('was this binary modified', 'what changed in /etc') that distinguish it from general alert or agent tools.

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 provides example questions the tool answers, giving implied usage guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use this tool or compare it with related tools like wazuh_search_alerts or wazuh_rootcheck, so guidance is present but not fully explicit.

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