ansible-know-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

get_role_doc

Read-only

Retrieve complete structured documentation for any Ansible role, including metadata, entry points, dependencies, and examples. Falls back to Galaxy README when local docs are unavailable.

Instructions

Get full structured documentation for one role.

Returns: role_name, content_type ('role'), short_description, doc_source ('local', 'galaxy_readme', or 'unavailable'), entry_points (dict of entry point names to {description, options}), dependencies (list), examples (str). When doc_source is 'galaxy_readme', also includes doc_version and doc_warning. Falls back to Galaxy README parsing if local ansible-doc returns empty. On validation failure returns {"error": str}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role_name`	Yes	Fully-qualified role name (e.g. 'fedora.linux_system_roles.timesync')

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.7.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, but description adds return structure details, fallback mechanism, and error response. No contradiction; adds value beyond annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Concise, front-loaded with goal, then structured returns, fallback, and error info. No unnecessary words. Ideal length.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Completes the picture with output schema implicitly described, error handling, fallback, and parameter explanation. For a 1-param read-only tool, this is fully sufficient.

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 parameter. Description does not add new meaning beyond schema; baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Starts with 'Get full structured documentation for one role' – a specific verb and resource. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like get_module_doc or get_plugin_doc by focusing on roles.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit when-to-use vs alternatives, but the name and description make the purpose obvious. Provides fallback behavior hint but lacks exclusions or alternative recommendations.

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