cloudwright-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

security_scan

Find security misconfigurations and anti-patterns in architectures. Get report with severity-graded findings (critical to info) per component: unencrypted data, public databases, missing WAF, weak auth, SPOFs, permissive protocols.

Instructions

Scan an architecture for security anti-patterns and misconfigurations.

Returns a structured report with severity-graded findings (critical / high / medium / low / info), each tied to specific component IDs. Framework- agnostic — use validate_compliance for specific regulatory frameworks.

Checks include: unencrypted data stores, public-facing databases, missing WAF on public HTTP endpoints, weak auth on APIs, SPOFs, overly permissive connection protocols.

Behavior: Pure computation — no LLM, no network. Does not touch cloud.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "spec_json": "<spec_json>"
    },
    "name": "security_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`spec_json`	Yes	ArchSpec to scan. The scanner inspects component configs, connection protocols, encryption flags, exposure boundaries, and auth presence.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.1Apr 19, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / spec_json / description

Added value: +"ArchSpec to scan. The scanner inspects component configs, connection protocols, encryption flags, exposure boundaries, and auth presence."

First observedv0.1.0Apr 19, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Discloses that it is pure computation with no network or cloud access, though read-only nature could be explicitly stated.

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?

Concise, front-loaded, and well-structured with no unnecessary information.

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?

Comprehensive description covering input, output, scope, behavioral constraints, and relationship to sibling tools despite lacking output schema.

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 provides 100% coverage for the single parameter, and description adds context on what the scanner inspects, enhancing 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 scans architecture for security anti-patterns, lists example checks, and distinguishes from validate_compliance.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly directs users to use validate_compliance for specific regulatory frameworks, providing clear guidance on when to use this tool.

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