MCP SysOperator

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation4/5
The tools are clearly organized into AWS service management (e.g., aws_ec2, aws_s3), Ansible operations (e.g., run_playbook, list_inventory), and Terraform/Vault utilities, with minimal overlap. However, aws_cloudformation and terraform both handle infrastructure-as-code, which could cause slight confusion in selection, though their descriptions clarify distinct purposes.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun or service_action naming (e.g., aws_ec2, run_playbook, vault_encrypt_string). The main deviation is 'terraform', which lacks a verb prefix, but this is minor given its distinct domain and common usage.
Tool Count4/5
With 18 tools, the count is reasonable for the broad scope of cloud infrastructure and automation management, covering AWS, Ansible, Terraform, and Vault. It might feel slightly heavy, but each tool addresses a specific, necessary function without obvious redundancy.
Completeness5/5
The toolset provides comprehensive coverage for cloud infrastructure operations: AWS services have full lifecycle management (e.g., create, list, manage), Ansible includes playbook execution, syntax checking, and inventory handling, and Terraform/Vault cover essential commands. No significant gaps are apparent for the intended domain.
Average 2.7/5 across 18 of 18 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior1/5
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 but provides none. 'Create' implies a write/mutation operation, but there's no information about what gets created, where it goes, whether it's persistent, what permissions are needed, or what the output looks like. No rate limits, error conditions, or side effects are mentioned.
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 maximally concise at just three words. While this represents severe under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure length perspective, every word serves a purpose and there's zero redundancy or wasted text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 5 parameters (including complex nested objects), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and no sibling differentiation, this description is completely inadequate. It provides almost no useful information beyond the tool name itself, leaving the agent with insufficient guidance to understand when or how to use this tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 5 parameters (including complex nested objects), the description provides zero information about any parameters. It doesn't mention 'region' (the only required parameter), 'filters', 'hostnames', 'keyed_groups', or 'compose'. The agent would have no idea what these parameters mean or how to use them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Create AWS dynamic inventory' is essentially a tautology that restates the tool name with minimal elaboration. While it specifies the verb 'Create' and resource 'AWS dynamic inventory', it doesn't explain what a 'dynamic inventory' is or what this tool actually produces. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling inventory-related tools like 'list_inventory'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites, when this tool is appropriate versus other AWS tools or inventory-related tools, or any context about typical use cases. The agent would have no idea when to select this tool over similar options.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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 but provides almost none. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but there's no information about authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, side effects, or what specific behaviors correspond to different action parameter values. For a tool with 9 parameters and potentially destructive operations (like delete_bucket), this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words, with no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core concept and doesn't include any redundant information. While this conciseness comes at the expense of completeness, the description itself is structurally sound and efficiently communicates its limited scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, multiple action types including potentially destructive operations), lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no information about what the tool actually does, how to use it, what parameters mean, what behaviors to expect, or what results it returns. For a multi-function AWS S3 management tool, this minimal description fails to provide the necessary context for effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 9 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about any parameters, their meanings, or how they relate to different actions. The description doesn't even mention that there's an 'action' parameter that determines what operation is performed, nor does it explain what parameters are required for which actions. This leaves all parameter semantics completely undocumented.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage AWS S3 buckets and objects' is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'aws_s3' with slightly different wording. While it indicates the general domain (AWS S3), it doesn't specify what management actions are possible or distinguish this tool from its many AWS sibling tools (like aws_ec2, aws_lambda, etc.). The description lacks a specific verb that would clarify the tool's function.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines1/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With 15 sibling tools on the server (including 8 other AWS-specific tools), there's no indication of what makes this S3 tool distinct or when an agent should choose it over other AWS tools or general infrastructure tools like terraform or run_playbook. The description offers no context about appropriate use cases or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers minimal information. 'Manage' implies CRUD operations, but it doesn't specify authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or what 'manage' entails beyond the action parameter. It lacks details on destructive operations (delete) or side effects.
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 extremely concise—just three words—which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it's arguably under-specified given the tool's complexity (16 parameters, multiple actions). While not verbose, it may sacrifice clarity for brevity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (16 parameters, 5 actions, nested objects), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, action specifics, return values, or error conditions. For a multi-action AWS tool, this leaves significant gaps for an AI agent to operate effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 16 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter semantics—it doesn't explain what 'action', 'region', or other parameters mean, how they interact, or provide examples. This leaves parameters like 'zipFile' vs 's3Bucket' vs 'functionCode' ambiguous.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage AWS Lambda functions' states the general purpose (managing Lambda functions) but is vague about what specific actions are available. It doesn't mention the five specific actions (list, create, update, delete, invoke) that the tool supports, nor does it distinguish this tool from sibling AWS tools like aws_ec2 or aws_s3 beyond the Lambda focus.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., AWS credentials), when to choose specific actions, or how this differs from other AWS tools in the sibling list. Users must infer usage from the action parameter alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior1/5
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. 'Manage' is extremely vague - it doesn't indicate whether operations are read-only or destructive, what permissions are required, whether changes are reversible, what happens on errors, or any rate limits. This leaves the agent with insufficient information about the tool's behavior.
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 maximally concise with a single four-word phrase. While this represents under-specification rather than ideal conciseness, from a pure length perspective, it's efficient with zero wasted words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 14 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It fails to provide the necessary context about how to use the tool effectively, what it returns, or how different actions work with different parameter combinations.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 14 parameters (only 2 required), the description provides absolutely no information about parameters. It doesn't mention the 'action' parameter that drives the tool's behavior, doesn't explain what parameters are needed for different actions, and offers no guidance on parameter usage or dependencies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage AWS RDS database instances' clearly states the verb ('manage') and resource ('AWS RDS database instances'), making the purpose understandable. It doesn't specifically distinguish from sibling tools like aws_ec2 or aws_s3, but the resource focus is clear enough for basic differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like AWS credentials, doesn't explain when to choose RDS management over other AWS tools, and offers no context about appropriate use cases or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, destructive effects (e.g., deletion consequences), or response formats. For a tool with 9 parameters including potentially destructive actions like 'delete', this is a significant gap.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a high-level summary, though it lacks detail that might be needed given the tool's complexity. The structure is front-loaded but under-specified rather than concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given high complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address the tool's scope, error conditions, or return values. For a multi-action tool (list/create/delete) with significant infrastructure implications, more context is needed to guide effective use.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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. 'Manage AWS VPC networks' adds minimal meaning beyond the tool name. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'action', 'cidrBlock', 'dnsSupport', or 'subnets' do, how they interact, or which are required for specific actions. With 9 parameters and complex nested objects, the description fails to provide necessary context.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage AWS VPC networks' states a general purpose (verb+resource) but is vague about what 'manage' entails. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling AWS tools like aws_ec2 or aws_cloudformation, which could also manage aspects of VPCs. The description lacks specificity about the actual operations available.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple AWS-related sibling tools (e.g., aws_ec2, aws_cloudformation, terraform), there's no indication of this tool's specific role, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only through the generic term 'manage'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but the description doesn't disclose behavioral traits like required AWS permissions, potential destructive actions (create/update/delete), rate limits, error handling, or what 'manage' specifically entails. It leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 extremely concise with just three words, front-loaded with the key information. There's zero waste or redundancy, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (8 parameters, multiple actions including destructive operations, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address what the tool returns, error conditions, authentication requirements, or how different actions affect behavior. For a multi-action AWS management tool, this minimal description is inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but adds no parameter information. It doesn't explain what parameters like 'action', 'templateBody', 'capabilities', or 'parameters' mean, their formats, or how they interact. With 8 parameters and no schema descriptions, this is a significant gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage AWS CloudFormation stacks' states the general purpose but is vague about what 'manage' entails. It specifies the resource (AWS CloudFormation stacks) but lacks a specific verb beyond the generic 'manage'. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on CloudFormation rather than other AWS services, but doesn't clarify what specific operations are included.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 like terraform or other AWS tools (aws_ec2, aws_lambda, etc.). The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions. Users must infer usage from the action parameter alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but the description doesn't specify what permissions are required, whether operations are destructive, what error conditions might occur, or what the response format looks like. For a tool with 11 parameters and complex operations, this is a significant gap in behavioral information.
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 extremely concise at just 4 words, with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. While it's under-specified, it's not verbose or poorly structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 11 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain what operations are available, what parameters mean, what the tool returns, or any behavioral characteristics. The description fails to provide the necessary context for proper tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 11 parameters, the description provides no information about any parameters. It doesn't explain what 'action', 'region', 'name', 'lbType', or any other parameters mean or how they should be used. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of parameter documentation in the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage AWS Elastic Load Balancers' states the resource (AWS Elastic Load Balancers) and a general action ('Manage'), but it's vague about what specific operations are included. It doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling AWS tools like aws_ec2 or aws_s3, which also manage AWS resources. The verb 'Manage' is too broad to clearly indicate the tool's specific capabilities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for use, or comparisons with sibling tools like aws_ec2 or aws_vpc. There's no indication of when this tool is appropriate versus other AWS management approaches.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but the description doesn't specify permissions needed, whether operations are destructive, rate limits, or what happens on success/failure. It lacks crucial context for a tool with potentially destructive actions like delete_role.
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 extremely concise at just 5 words with no wasted language. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, this conciseness comes at the cost of completeness for such a complex tool.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with 9 parameters, 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and potentially destructive operations, the description is severely inadequate. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or provide enough context for safe and effective use despite the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
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 but provides no parameter information. It doesn't explain what 'action' values do, what 'region' affects, or how other parameters like 'policyDocument' or 'assumeRolePolicyDocument' should be structured. The description adds no value beyond what's visible in the schema property names.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage AWS IAM roles and policies' states the general purpose (managing IAM resources) but is vague about the specific actions available. It distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on IAM rather than other AWS services like EC2 or S3, but doesn't specify what 'manage' entails beyond the broad category.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or comparisons with sibling tools like other AWS services. Users must infer usage from the tool name and parameter schema alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. 'Manage' implies both read and write operations, but the description doesn't specify permissions required, rate limits, whether operations are idempotent, what happens on failures, or any behavioral traits. It provides minimal behavioral context for a complex multi-action tool.
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 extremely concise - a single 7-word sentence that gets straight to the point. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently communicates the scope.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 10 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It doesn't explain the multi-action nature (implied by the action parameter), doesn't provide usage context, and leaves the agent with insufficient information to use the tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage and 10 parameters, the description provides no parameter information whatsoever. It doesn't explain what the 'action' parameter does, what values it accepts, or how parameters relate to different actions. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Manage AWS Route53 DNS records and zones' states the general purpose (manage DNS resources) but is vague about what 'manage' entails. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying Route53, but doesn't clarify the specific actions available beyond the general term 'manage'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
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 doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over other AWS tools, or any context-specific usage recommendations. It's a generic statement with no practical guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While it lists actions, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether 'terminate' is destructive and irreversible, what permissions are required, whether operations are synchronous/asynchronous, or any rate limits. The description mentions actions but lacks operational context needed for safe use.
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 extremely concise - a single parenthetical phrase listing actions. While efficient, it may be too terse given the tool's complexity. Every word earns its place, but more context would be helpful for such a multi-action tool with many parameters.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is inadequate. It doesn't address the tool's multi-action nature, parameter dependencies across actions, return values, error conditions, or AWS-specific considerations like region requirements and authentication.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 13 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter information beyond what's implied by action names. It doesn't explain which parameters apply to which actions (e.g., 'instanceType' likely applies to 'create' but not 'list'), parameter dependencies, or what values are expected. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool manages AWS EC2 instances and lists specific actions (list, create, start, stop, terminate), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'aws_cloudformation' or 'aws_vpc' that also manage AWS resources, so it doesn't fully distinguish from alternatives.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling AWS tools (e.g., aws_s3 for storage, aws_lambda for serverless functions). There's no mention of prerequisites, authentication requirements, or specific scenarios where EC2 management is appropriate versus other AWS services.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states what the tool does but doesn't describe how it behaves: no information about output format, pagination, error handling, or whether it's a read-only operation. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence that states the core function without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple listing tool and gets straight to the point.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like, how to interpret results, or provide enough context about the 'inventory' parameter. More information is needed for the agent to use this tool effectively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'inventory' but doesn't explain what this parameter means, what format it expects, or whether it's required. The description adds minimal value beyond the parameter name itself.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'list' and the resources 'Ansible inventory hosts and groups', making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'aws_dynamic_inventory' which might also list inventory in some way, preventing a perfect score.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'aws_dynamic_inventory' or 'list_tasks', nor does it mention any prerequisites or context for usage. It's a basic statement of function without usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 but offers minimal information. It mentions running commands against hosts but doesn't cover critical aspects like execution environment, permissions required, error handling, output format, or whether this is a read-only or mutative operation. For a tool that likely executes commands on remote systems, this represents significant gaps in transparency.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and wastes no space on redundant information. This represents optimal conciseness for the minimal content provided.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of running Ansible commands (6 parameters including nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how errors are handled, what permissions are needed, or provide any context about the execution environment. For a potentially powerful automation tool, this leaves critical gaps in understanding.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for all 6 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings or usage. It doesn't explain what 'pattern', 'module', 'args', 'inventory', 'become', or 'extra_vars' represent or how they should be used, leaving the agent to guess based on parameter names alone. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Run') and target ('Ansible ad-hoc command against specified hosts'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'run_playbook' or 'list_tasks', which also involve Ansible operations, leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this specific ad-hoc approach.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_playbook' for more complex automation or 'list_inventory' for host management. There's no mention of prerequisites, typical use cases, or limitations, leaving the agent with minimal context for tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the action ('Run') but doesn't explain what this entails—such as whether it executes commands on remote systems, requires authentication, has side effects, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.
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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (5 parameters, no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, how parameters interact, or any behavioral nuances, making it incomplete for effective tool selection and invocation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 5 parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no information about parameters like 'playbook', 'extraVars', or 'inventory', failing to compensate for the lack of schema documentation. This leaves the agent guessing about parameter meanings and usage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Run an Ansible playbook' clearly states the verb ('Run') and resource ('Ansible playbook'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'run_ad_hoc', which also runs Ansible commands, so it misses full sibling differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_ad_hoc' or 'check_syntax'. There's no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Execute Terraform commands' implies this is an execution tool, it doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits: whether commands are destructive (like 'destroy'), what permissions are needed, whether it modifies infrastructure, what happens on failure, or any rate limits. The mention of 'destroy' in the examples hints at destructive potential but doesn't explicitly warn about it.
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 extremely concise - a single sentence with parenthetical examples. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and wastes no words. Every element earns its place, though it could benefit from additional context given the tool's complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex infrastructure tool with 12 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what Terraform is, what the commands do, what the expected outputs are, or any behavioral characteristics. The agent would struggle to use this tool correctly without significant external knowledge.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 12 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description provides no parameter semantics whatsoever. It doesn't explain what 'action' does, what 'workingDir' means, how 'varFiles' or 'vars' are used, what 'autoApprove' controls, or the purpose of any other parameters. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Execute Terraform commands' with specific examples (init, plan, apply, destroy, validate, output, etc.). It uses a specific verb ('Execute') and identifies the resource ('Terraform commands'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like AWS CloudFormation or other infrastructure tools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools available (AWS CloudFormation, various AWS services tools, Ansible tools), there's no indication of when Terraform is preferred over other infrastructure-as-code or cloud management tools. No context about use cases or prerequisites is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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 states the tool encrypts a string but doesn't reveal critical behaviors: whether it requires authentication, what encryption algorithm is used, if there are rate limits, what the output format is (e.g., encrypted string format), or potential side effects. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to use it effectively.
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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and appropriately sized for what it conveys, though it could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity (encryption tool with 4 parameters), no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return value, error conditions, dependencies, or parameter details, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning none of the 4 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The tool description provides no information about parameters beyond implying 'string' is encrypted. It doesn't explain what 'vault_id', 'vault_password_file', or 'name' do, their formats, or defaults. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Encrypt') and the resource ('a string using Ansible Vault'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from its sibling 'vault_decrypt_string' beyond the obvious encryption vs. decryption distinction, which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites like having Ansible Vault configured, when to choose encryption over other methods, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'vault_decrypt_string' beyond the implied inverse operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states it 'lists' tasks, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it's a simulation, preview, or actual execution check. No information about permissions, rate limits, or output format is included.
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 a single, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the output looks like (e.g., task names, parameters, order), whether it includes conditional tasks, or how it handles errors. The context of sibling tools suggests this is part of an automation/orchestration system, but the description doesn't leverage that context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'playbook' contextually but doesn't explain what constitutes a valid playbook identifier, format requirements, or where playbooks are sourced from. This adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter name.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), specifying they are tasks 'that would be executed by a playbook'. This distinguishes it from general task listing tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'run_playbook' or 'check_syntax'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing considerations, or contrast with sibling tools like 'run_playbook' (which executes tasks) or 'check_syntax' (which might validate playbooks).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
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. While it states what the tool does, it doesn't mention important behavioral aspects like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens with invalid inputs. For a decryption tool with security implications, this is a significant gap in transparency.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward decryption tool and front-loads the essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a security-related decryption tool with 3 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't address authentication, error conditions, return format, or parameter requirements beyond the basic purpose. The agent would need to guess about many operational aspects.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 0% schema description coverage for 3 parameters, the description provides no information about parameter meanings or usage. It doesn't explain what 'string' should contain, what 'vault_id' refers to, or when 'vault_password_file' is needed. The description fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.
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 specific action ('decrypt') and target resource ('a string encrypted with Ansible Vault'), distinguishing it from its sibling 'vault_encrypt_string'. It uses precise technical terminology that accurately conveys the tool's function without ambiguity.
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 implies usage context by specifying 'encrypted with Ansible Vault', which suggests this tool is for decrypting strings created by that specific system. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives or provide exclusions, though the sibling relationship with 'vault_encrypt_string' provides some implicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
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 indicates this is a non-executing, read-only validation tool ('without executing it'), which is valuable behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like maximum playbook size, timeout behavior, or error format, leaving some behavioral aspects unspecified.
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 perfectly concise - a single sentence that communicates the complete purpose without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core functionality and includes the critical behavioral qualifier in the same sentence.
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?
For a single-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate purpose and behavioral context but lacks parameter details and output information. It's complete enough to understand what the tool does at a high level but insufficient for confident usage without additional documentation about parameter format and return values.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It doesn't explicitly mention the 'playbook' parameter or provide any details about its expected format, content requirements, or examples. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's implied by the tool's purpose.
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 specific action ('check syntax') and target resource ('Ansible playbook'), with the important qualification 'without executing it' that distinguishes it from execution tools. It precisely communicates what the tool does in a single concise statement.
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 clear context about when to use this tool - specifically for syntax checking rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when NOT to use it or name specific alternatives among the sibling tools (like 'run_playbook'), which would be needed for a perfect score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tarnover_mcp-sysoperator MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MCP-Mirror/tarnover_mcp-sysoperator/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MCP-Mirror/tarnover_mcp-sysoperator)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![tarnover_mcp-sysoperator MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MCP-Mirror/tarnover_mcp-sysoperator/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/MCP-Mirror/tarnover_mcp-sysoperator)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/MCP-Mirror/tarnover_mcp-sysoperator'

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