Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Itential MCP Server

Itential MCP Server

Official
by itential
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Run Compliance Plan

run_compliance_plan

Execute a compliance plan against network devices to validate configurations against organizational standards, then return the running instance details.

Instructions

Execute a compliance plan against network devices.

Compliance plans validate device configurations against organizational standards by running predefined checks and rules. This function starts a compliance plan execution and returns the running instance details.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "run_compliance_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesThe name of the compliance plan to run

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instanceYesRunning compliance plan instance details

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.14.1
    • addedOutput schema / properties / instance / properties / batchId
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Batch identifier used to retrieve the compliance reports\nproduced by this plan run (pass to\nget_compliance_reports_by_batch)",
+  "title": "Batchid"
+}
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write/non-destructive/open-world profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral detail beyond that — it "starts" an execution and returns the running instance, implying asynchronous behavior rather than a completed validation — but it omits follow-up monitoring guidance and any permission requirements.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The action is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by compact explanatory context. The middle sentence about what compliance plans do is somewhat parenthetical, and "Execute a compliance plan" is restated by "starts a compliance plan execution," but overall the text is short and purposeful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations carry the safety profile. However, for a trigger-style tool that returns a running instance, the description should tell the agent how to discover valid plan names and how to follow the execution afterwards; those operational gaps keep it at adequate-but-incomplete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single 'name' parameter, so the schema already documents it and the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds no extra meaning, such as where plan names come from (get_compliance_plans) or naming conventions.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Execute a compliance plan against network devices") and explains what a compliance plan does, so an agent can distinguish it from read-oriented siblings like get_compliance_plans or describe_compliance_report. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the other 'run_*'/'start_*' siblings, so it falls just short of a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says what the tool does but never states when to use it versus alternatives (e.g., get_compliance_plans to discover names, describe_compliance_report to read results), nor any prerequisites such as the plan already existing or devices being in scope. There are no explicit exclusions or selection conditions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools