Retrieve enrolled FreeIPA hosts with FQDN, OS, enrollment status, and group memberships. Filter by FQDN substring to locate specific systems or limit results.
List hosts enrolled in FreeIPA. Returns FQDN, OS, enrollment status, and group memberships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fqdn | No | Filter by FQDN — substring match (e.g. '.example.com') | |
| limit | No | Maximum number of hosts to return (default 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It signals a non-mutating listing operation and describes the output fields, but it does not mention the default 100-host limit or the substring semantics of the fqdn filter.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded first, followed by the return payload.
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?
The absence of an output schema is largely compensated for by listing the return fields (FQDN, OS, enrollment status, group memberships). The main remaining gap is pagination/default-limit behavior, though the limit is visible in the schema.
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 coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents fqdn substring matching and the limit default. The description adds no additional parameter-level context, keeping this at the baseline.
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 names a specific verb ('List'), a specific resource ('hosts'), and a domain ('FreeIPA'). The plural resource clearly distinguishes it from get_host and other singular sibling tools.
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 verb 'List' and the returned fields imply the tool is for enumerating hosts, but the description gives no explicit guidance about when to choose it over get_host or how to filter by fqdn. Usage is implied rather than explicitly routed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.