Checks if CloudTrail logging is enabled across all AWS regions. Identifies gaps in audit coverage for compliance and security.
Check if CloudTrail logging is enabled and covering all regions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| region | Yes | AWS region to scan, e.g. eu-west-1 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only check but does not state whether it returns a boolean, a report, or what happens if logging is not configured. It also does not clarify whether the check is per-region or across all regions, which is ambiguous given the 'covering all regions' phrasing.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose without any filler. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's function.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given there is no output schema, the description should clarify the return value and how the region parameter affects the check. It does not specify whether the tool returns a simple yes/no, a list of regions missing logging, or a detailed report. The interaction between the 'region' parameter and 'all regions' is unclear, leaving significant gaps for an agent to make correct calls.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents the 'region' parameter with an example, providing 100% schema description coverage. The description adds no additional parameter details, so it meets the baseline for tools with well-covered schemas.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states a specific verb ('Check') and resource ('CloudTrail logging'), and specifies the scope ('enabled and covering all regions'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools that target EC2, EBS, S3, security groups, and IAM, so an agent can easily identify this as the CloudTrail check.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description simply states what it does without mentioning prerequisites, conditions, or comparisons to sibling tools like scan_s3_public_access or sweep_other_regions. An agent has to infer usage from context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.