Skip to main content
Glama

CIS Benchmark

cis_benchmark
Read-onlyIdempotent

Evaluate cloud security posture by running CIS benchmark checks across AWS, Azure, GCP, and Snowflake. Identifies failed controls with MITRE ATT&CK mappings to help prioritize remediation.

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, but the description adds valuable context: all checks are read-only, failed checks include MITRE ATT&CK mappings, and requires credentials. This surpasses annotation-only information.

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 concise, well-structured with bullet points for provider specifics, and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 (multiple providers, many checks), the description covers purpose, scope, read-only nature, output format, and credential requirements. It lacks error handling details but is otherwise comprehensive.

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 description does not add significant detail beyond what is already in the schema (e.g., provider values, check ID format, defaults). 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 description clearly states the tool runs CIS benchmark checks against a cloud account and enumerates specific benchmarks with check counts per provider. It distinguishes itself from sibling scanning tools by its focus on CIS Foundations Benchmarks.

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 implicitly conveys when to use (to evaluate security posture against CIS benchmarks) and lists supported providers, but it does not explicitly state when not to use or suggest alternatives among sibling tools.

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