I spent most of my morning staring at the Lacework dashboard, trying to correlate an anomalous Kubernetes execution alert with a specific container image in ECR. It’s the same ritual every time a high-severity event hits: you see the alert, you dive into the telemetry, then you realize you need to check if any other running pods share that same layer, then you hunt for the CVE details, and by the time you've pieced together the blast radius, the context has already started to decay.
We talk a lot about AI agents having 'hands.' We celebrate when an agent can write a PR or run a test suite. But in Security Operations, 'hands' aren't just about performing actions; they are about reducing the latency between detection and understanding. The bottleneck isn't usually the lack of data—it's the friction of navigating it.
When I first started seeing people connect MCP servers to Claude or Cursor, my immediate reaction was skepticism. Most of them looked like toys. They were brittle scripts that broke if a JSON key changed slightly. But then I started looking at how we could actually use the Model Context Protocol for something heavy-duty, like Cloud Native Application Protection (CNAPP).
If you can give an agent the ability to execute LQL (Lacework Query Language) via execute_query or search through your entire cloud footprint using search_cve_exposure, you aren't just 'chatting with your infra.' You are fundamentally changing the speed of incident response.
The Context Gap
The real problem isn't finding an alert. It’s the manual labor required to find out what that alert actually means in the context of your specific environment.
Take a standard Lacework alert for 'Anomalous Kubernetes Process.' If you're using the tool manually, you're clicking through layers of UI to find which container image SHA was involved. With this MCP server, I can simply ask: "Get the details for Alert ID 12345." The get_alert tool pulls the precise telemetry—the offending Container Image SHAs and those correlated external IP anomalies—and feeds it directly into the LLM's context window.
Suddenly, the agent isn't just guessing; it’s looking at the actual behavioral payload. You can then immediately follow up with: "Are there any other images in our ECR registry that share this same vulnerability?" The list_container_vulnerabilities tool allows the agent to bridge that gap between a running process and your static registries instantly.
When Zero-Days Hit
We’ve all been there. A new critical CVE is announced at 2:00 PM on a Tuesday. The entire engineering org goes into panic mode. The first question is always: "Are we vulnerable?"
In the old way, that's an investigative slog through asset inventories and vulnerability scans. In the new way, you use search_cve_exposure. You provide the CVE ID—say, a new Log4j variant—and the agent iterates across your entire cloud footprint to determine exactly which machines or instances are currently exposed. It’s not just about finding 'if' it exists; it's about finding where it is active and running.
I recently tested this with a scenario involving an unrestricted S3 bucket discovery. I asked the agent: "Are there any unrestricted S3 buckets currently visible in our inventory?" It used search_cloud_inventory to audit the real-time control plane and immediately flagged two buckets—'public-assets-prod' and 'temp-data-dump'—that allowed world-readable access. No manual searching through IAM policies or bucket configurations required. The agent found it, reported it, and I could have immediately asked it to check the associated security policies.
The Elephant in the Room: Security Risks
I know what you're thinking. "Renato, you're talking about giving an LLM access to our Lacework credentials and our cloud control plane. That sounds like a disaster waiting to happen."\
You’re right. It is a massive risk if done poorly. There was a great piece recently on Dev.to about how connecting an MCP server gives your agent hands, but it also gives a stranger a way in. If you are pasting sensitive API keys into a generic, unvetted MCP implementation, you are essentially handing the keys to your kingdom to whoever controls that middleware.
This is exactly why I spent so much time building MCPFusion and eventually Vinkius. We couldn't just build another 'connector.' We had to build a governance layer.
Every execution on Vinkius runs inside isolated V8 sandboxes. When you use the Lacework MCP via our platform, there are eight built-in governance policies running in the background—things like DLP (Data Loss Prevention), SSRF prevention, and HMAC audit chains. If an agent tries to use a tool to exfiltrate data or perform an unauthorized cross-account poll, the system is designed to catch it. We treat security as a non-negotiable part of the infrastructure, not an afterthought you add via a config file.
The Workflow Shift
We are moving from a world of 'Dashboard Monitoring' to 'Agentic Interrogation.'
Monitoring is passive; you wait for a red light to blink. Interrogation is active; you ask questions of your infrastructure. Using tools like list_lql_queries or execute_query, you can perform deep threat hunting that previously required specialized knowledge and significant time. You don't need to be an LQL expert to hunt for anomalous login patterns if you can describe the pattern in natural language and let the agent translate it into a functional query.
This isn't about replacing security analysts. It’s about removing the 'drudge work'—the clicking, the searching, the manual correlation—so they can actually focus on remediation and architecture.
You can find this Lacework implementation at https://vinkius.com/mcp/lacework-cloud-security-cnapp. The setup is as simple as it gets: subscribe, grab your token, and paste it into Claude or Cursor. No complex OAuth callback hell to configure.
If you're still manually hunting through tabs, you aren't just working harder; you're working slower than the threats are moving.
MCPs are the music of AI Agents. We built the catalog. Discover Vinkius MCP Catalog.
