Retrieve available post-install Ansible tasks for Hostkey servers, filtered by applicability tags (gpu, bm, vm, vgpu, default). Add a token to return only tasks available to that user.
Available post-install Ansible tasks (jenkins/get_tasks) with applicability tags: gpu, bm, vm, vgpu, default. Without a token — general list; with a token — tasks available to the specific user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so safety is covered. The description adds real value beyond them by enumerating the applicability tags (gpu, bm, vm, vgpu, default) and disclosing that the result set is scoped by whether a token is supplied.
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, front-loaded with what the tool returns, then the tag vocabulary and the token-scoping rule. No filler; the parenthetical API path is the only marginally expendable detail.
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?
For a zero-parameter read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description supplies the important context an agent needs: the tag taxonomy and the user-scoping behavior. It stops short of describing the item shape returned, but that gap is small.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document and the baseline is 4. The token/scope note actually anticipates the auth-context variation that the empty schema cannot express.
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?
States a specific verb+resource (list available post-install Ansible tasks) and even names the backing operation (jenkins/get_tasks), so the agent knows exactly what is returned. It does not explicitly name the complementary sibling run_post_install_task, though the list/run distinction is hard to confuse.
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?
It explains a behavioral condition — token present vs absent changes the scope of the list — which is useful context, but never says when to call this versus run_post_install_task or other discovery tools. Usage is only implied from the name and scope note.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.