Skip to main content
Glama
tjnull

Ludus FastMCP

by tjnull
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

ensure_scenario_roles

Checks and installs required Ansible roles for Ludus cyber range scenarios, ensuring all dependencies are ready before deployment.

Instructions

Ensure all required roles for a scenario are installed, installing missing ones automatically.

This is the recommended MCP tool to use before deploying a scenario. It will:

  1. Check which roles are required for the scenario

  2. Check which roles are already installed

  3. Automatically install missing Galaxy roles (if auto_install=True)

  4. Automatically clone and install directory-based roles via SSH (if SSH configured)

  5. Report which roles need manual installation (if SSH not configured)

MCP Workflow:

  • Use ensure_scenario_roles() before deploying to ensure all roles are ready

  • Configure SSH access with configure_ssh_role_installation() for automatic directory-based role installation

  • Use install_role() to install individual roles as needed

Args: scenario_key: Scenario identifier (e.g., "redteam-lab-intermediate") siem_type: SIEM type if scenario uses SIEM (wazuh, splunk, elastic, security-onion, none) auto_install: Automatically install missing roles (default: True)

Returns: Dictionary with installation status for all required roles

Example: # Ensure all roles are installed before deployment result = await ensure_scenario_roles( scenario_key="redteam-lab-intermediate", siem_type="none", auto_install=True )

# Check status without installing
result = await ensure_scenario_roles(
    scenario_key="redteam-lab-intermediate",
    auto_install=False
)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenario_keyYes
siem_typeNowazuh
auto_installNo

Tool Definition Quality

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the tool's multi-step process (checking, installing, reporting), conditions for automatic installation (Galaxy roles vs. directory-based roles with SSH), and output format ('Dictionary with installation status'). It does not mention error handling or rate limits, but covers core behavior adequately for a tool with no annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with clear sections (purpose, workflow, args, returns, example) and uses bold for emphasis without excess. It is slightly verbose in the workflow section, but every sentence adds value (e.g., explaining SSH dependencies), making it appropriately detailed for a complex tool.

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 (3 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is largely complete. It explains the tool's purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return value, with practical examples. It could explicitly detail the return dictionary structure, but the context provided is sufficient for an agent to understand and invoke the tool effectively.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context for all three parameters: 'scenario_key' is explained as a scenario identifier with an example, 'siem_type' is clarified as relevant only if the scenario uses SIEM with listed options, and 'auto_install' is detailed with its default and effect on behavior. This goes beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't specify SIEM type defaults or constraints exhaustively.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Ensure all required roles for a scenario are installed, installing missing ones automatically.' It specifies the verb ('ensure'), resource ('roles for a scenario'), and mechanism ('installing missing ones automatically'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like 'install_role' or 'get_required_roles_for_scenario' by emphasizing automation and pre-deployment readiness.

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?

The description provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool: 'This is the recommended MCP tool to use before deploying a scenario.' It includes an MCP Workflow section detailing usage context, prerequisites (e.g., SSH configuration), and alternatives (e.g., 'install_role' for individual roles), with examples showing both automatic and manual modes.

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/tjnull/Ludus-FastMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server