Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
qualys-mcp

qualys-mcp

by nelssec
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

assess_risk

Evaluate security risk across VMs, cloud, containers, web apps, certificates, and assets. Identify top risky assets and prioritize remediation to strengthen your security posture.

Instructions

[Risk Assessment] Cross-domain risk assessment — VMs, cloud, containers, web apps, certificates, assets. @slow

USE WHEN: "what's our risk?", "show me cloud risk in AWS", "top risky assets", "container vulnerabilities", "expiring certificates", "EOL systems", "risk by business unit", "how's our security posture?"

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "assess_risk"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
osNoOS filter
tagNofilter by tag/business group
daysNotime window (default 30)
limitNomax results per data source (default 20)
queryNohostname/asset name search
scopeNo"all" | "cloud" | "containers" | "web" | "certs" | "assets" | "fim" | "edr" | "infrastructure"all
detailNo"summary" | "standard" | "detailed"standard
serviceNocloud service filter (S3, IAM, EC2, Lambda, etc.)
sort_byNo"trurisk" | "severity"trurisk
app_nameNoweb application name filter
asset_idNosingle asset deep-dive (skips broad queries)
eol_onlyNoonly end-of-life assets
image_idNospecific container image
providerNo"aws" | "azure" | "gcp" (cloud scope)
weak_onlyNoonly certificates with issues
account_idNospecific cloud account
asset_groupNofilter by asset group
per_accountNoinclude per-account breakdown
breakdown_byNo"tag" | "none"tag
weak_ciphersNofilter for weak cipher suites
owasp_categoryNoOWASP Top 10 category (Injection, XSS, etc.)
days_since_scanNoscan gap filter (days)
days_since_seenNostale asset filter (days)
include_expiredNoinclude expired certificates
protocol_filterNoTLS version filter (TLSv1.0, SSLv3, etc.)
insecure_renegotiationNofilter for insecure TLS renegotiation

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.9

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool is '@slow' and spans multiple domains, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, which data sources it queries, or any side effects. The output schema covers return structure, but the behavior beyond speed is somewhat opaque.

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 and front-loaded with the core purpose and a performance warning ('@slow'). The 'USE WHEN' list is directly relevant and adds no fluff. Every sentence and clause earns its place.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (26 parameters) and the absence of annotations, the description is relatively sparse. It provides high-level usage scenarios but does not explain parameter interactions (e.g., asset_id skipping broad queries), how results are aggregated across domains, or how to interpret the output. The rich schema and output schema help compensate, but the description alone leaves gaps for such a feature-rich tool.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter descriptions exist. The tool description adds value by mapping natural language to specific parameters, e.g., 'cloud risk in AWS' implies provider='aws' and scope='cloud', and 'container vulnerabilities' implies scope='containers'. This semantic mapping goes beyond the schema's literal field descriptions.

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 clear, specific purpose: cross-domain risk assessment across VMs, cloud, containers, web apps, certificates, and assets. The 'USE WHEN' examples further specify intent ('what's our risk?', 'show me cloud risk in AWS'). This distinguishes it from siblings like security_overview by emphasizing the cross-domain aggregation.

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 a 'USE WHEN' section with concrete example queries, giving clear context for when to invoke the tool. It does not explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5, but the examples are strong enough to effectively guide selection.

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