View all tasks that an Ansible playbook will execute to manage cloud infrastructure, helping you understand the operations before running them.
List all tasks that would be executed by a playbook
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playbook | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists tasks but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.
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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. Every word earns its place.
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 complexity of listing tasks (which may involve parsing playbooks) and the lack of annotations, output schema, and poor schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tasks' entail, how they're formatted, or any dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.
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 input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'playbook' but doesn't explain what this parameter represents, such as a playbook name or file path, or provide examples. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.
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 ('tasks'), specifying that these are tasks 'executed by a playbook'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_playbook' or 'run_ad_hoc' by focusing on listing rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_inventory', which might list different resources.
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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid playbook name, or compare it to siblings like 'check_syntax' for validation or 'run_playbook' for execution. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.