Skip to main content
Glama

CIS Benchmark

cis_benchmark
Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate cloud account security posture by running CIS Foundation Benchmarks checks for AWS, Azure, GCP, and Snowflake.

Instructions

Run CIS benchmark checks against a cloud account.

    Evaluates security posture against CIS Foundations Benchmarks:
    - AWS Foundations v3.0: 18 checks (IAM, Storage, Logging, Networking)
    - Snowflake v1.0: 12 checks (Auth, Network, Data Protection, Monitoring, Access Control)
    - Azure Security Benchmark v3.0: 10 checks (IAM, Storage, Logging, Networking, Key Vault)
    - GCP Foundation v3.0: 8 checks (IAM, Logging, Networking, Storage)

    All checks are read-only. Failed checks include MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise technique mappings.
    Requires appropriate credentials for the chosen provider.

    Returns:
        JSON with per-check pass/fail results, evidence, severity, ATT&CK techniques, and pass rate.
    

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
providerYesCloud provider: 'aws', 'snowflake', 'azure', or 'gcp'.
checksNoComma-separated check IDs to run (e.g. '1.1,2.1'). Omit to run all.
regionNoAWS region (only for provider=aws). Defaults to us-east-1.
profileNoAWS CLI profile (only for provider=aws).
subscription_idNoAzure subscription ID (only for provider=azure). Falls back to AZURE_SUBSCRIPTION_ID env var.
project_idNoGCP project ID (only for provider=gcp). Falls back to GOOGLE_CLOUD_PROJECT env var.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only and idempotent. The description reinforces read-only, adds that failed checks include MITRE ATT&CK mappings, and notes credential requirements—no contradictions, adds value.

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 well-structured with bullet points for each provider and a clear return format. Every sentence adds value; no fluff.

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?

Given the output schema, the description adequately explains return structure (JSON with per-check results, evidence, severity, ATT&CK techniques, pass rate). Also covers read-only and credentials. Sufficient for a complex tool.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions. The description provides high-level context for parameters but no additional syntax or format details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 verb 'Run' and resource 'CIS benchmark checks' are clearly stated. The description lists specific benchmarks per provider, distinguishing it from siblings like 'aisvs_benchmark' or 'scan'.

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 specifies when to use: to evaluate security posture against CIS Foundations Benchmarks, with provider details. It does not explicitly state when not to use or list alternatives, but the context is clear.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/msaad00/agent-bom'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server