Validate Ansible playbook syntax before running it. Provide the playbook path and optional inventory to catch errors early.
Syntax-check a playbook.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| playbook | Yes | Playbook path | |
| inventory | No | Inventory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. 'Syntax-check' implies a non-mutating validation operation, but the description doesn't state that the playbook is not executed, what happens on syntax errors, or whether inventory affects the check. This leaves key behavioral traits undisclosed.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise for the simple purpose, though it may err on the side of being too sparse to be fully self-contained.
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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only source of context. It fails to clarify that this tool only validates syntax and does not run the playbook, which is crucial for distinguishing it from ansible_run_playbook. The description is too minimal to fully equip an agent for correct 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both 'playbook' and 'inventory' are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no extra semantic context about how to use these parameters, such as path formats or the role of inventory in syntax checking, so a baseline score of 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, 'Syntax-check', and a specific resource, 'a playbook'. This clearly conveys the tool's function and is distinctly different from sibling tools like ansible_run_playbook and ansible_status, though it does not explicitly name those siblings.
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 that syntax-checking is a prerequisite before running a playbook, nor does it contrast with ansible_run_playbook or ansible_status. The usage context must be inferred entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.