Display Ansible inventory hosts and groups to manage infrastructure configuration and deployment resources.
List Ansible inventory hosts and groups
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "list_inventory"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| inventory | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
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 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't specify whether this requires specific permissions, what format the output takes (structured data vs plain text), whether it supports pagination, or how it handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral questions unanswered.
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 extremely concise at just 6 words, front-loading the essential information with zero wasted words. Every word earns its place by specifying the action ('List'), domain ('Ansible inventory'), and targets ('hosts and groups').
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 the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, no output schema, and the presence of potentially overlapping sibling tools, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the tool's relationship to other inventory-related tools, provide parameter guidance, or describe what the output looks like, leaving too many contextual gaps 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.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has 0% description coverage for its single parameter 'inventory', and the tool description provides no information about what this parameter represents, what values it accepts, or whether it's required. With low schema coverage and no parameter explanation in the description, users must guess what 'inventory' means in this context.
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 the verb ('List') and resource ('Ansible inventory hosts and groups'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate this tool from potential sibling inventory tools like 'aws_dynamic_inventory' or explain what distinguishes 'list_inventory' from other listing operations in the Ansible context.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'aws_dynamic_inventory' and 'aws_ec2' that might also provide inventory-related functionality, there's no indication of when this specific Ansible inventory tool is appropriate versus AWS-specific inventory tools or other operations like 'list_tasks'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.