Run a playbook after explicit confirmation, with optional inventory and extra-vars to control the execution.
Run a playbook (confirm required).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| confirm | No | Must be true to execute | |
| playbook | Yes | Playbook | |
| extraVars | No | JSON extra-vars | |
| inventory | No | Inventory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that confirmation is required, which is useful, but it does not disclose that running a playbook can execute arbitrary changes on targets, require permissions, or have side effects. The description is too thin for a potentially impactful operation.
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 short and the key safety requirement is front-loaded. It is not bloated, though for a tool that executes playbooks it could reasonably include one or two more sentences of context without losing conciseness.
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 tool can execute potentially impactful playbooks, has no annotations, and has no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It lacks any mention of side effects, prerequisites, error behavior, or how this relates to the safer sibling tools for validation and status checks.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, and the 'confirm required' note merely restates the confirm parameter's schema description. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 states a specific action ('Run a playbook') and a clear resource, which distinguishes it from siblings like ansible_syntax_check and ansible_status. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives or explain the nature of execution beyond the action.
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?
No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus ansible_syntax_check, ansible_status, or ansible_list_inventory. An agent is left to infer that running is different from checking or listing, but there is no explicit context for prerequisites or safer alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.