wazuh-mcp

Generate a Wazuh report

wazuh_generate_report

Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate a consolidated security report from Wazuh data, covering executive summaries, threats, agent health, vulnerabilities, compliance, file integrity, and authentication.

Instructions

Build a ready-to-share report by combining several Wazuh sources into one narrative with a markdown rendering. Report types: executive_summary (posture overview for leadership), threat_activity (top threats, MITRE breakdown, attacking IPs), agent_health (connectivity and version drift), vulnerability_exposure (CVE exposure by severity and host), compliance (control coverage for a framework), file_integrity (FIM change activity), authentication (login failures and brute-force patterns). Use this instead of stitching many tool calls together by hand.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`end`	No	Window end. Defaults to now.
`top`	No	Rows per breakdown table.
`start`	No	Window start: relative ('7d', '24h') or ISO-8601. Defaults to 7d.
`agent_id`	No	Scope the report to specific agents. Omit for the whole fleet.
`framework`	No	Required for report_type='compliance'.
`report_type`	No	Which report to build.	executive_summary

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety implications. The description adds context about combining sources and producing a report, which is consistent with the annotations. No contradictions or extra side effects are mentioned.

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?

The description is well-structured with a clear summary and a bulleted list of report types. It avoids unnecessary fluff but is slightly lengthy due to the enumeration. Overall, it is concise and easy to parse.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient context: what it does, when to use it, and a list of report types. It doesn't explain the output format in detail, but the output schema covers that, so the description is complete enough.

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?

The input schema covers all parameters with descriptions, and the description adds meaningful semantics for 'framework' by stating it's required for compliance reports. This goes beyond the schema's basic description, improving parameter understanding.

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's purpose: building a ready-to-share report by combining multiple Wazuh sources into one narrative with markdown rendering. It lists all report types and explicitly differentiates from sibling tools by saying 'Use this instead of stitching many tool calls together by hand.'

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides explicit usage guidance by directing users to use this tool instead of manually combining multiple tool calls. However, it doesn't enumerate specific scenarios beyond listing report types, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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