ansible-know-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

search_plugins

Read-only

Search Ansible plugins by keyword to retrieve up to 50 matches with fully qualified names and descriptions. Filter by namespace or plugin type to narrow results.

Instructions

Find Ansible plugins by keyword. Returns up to 50 matches as {fqcn: short_description}.

Plugin types: lookup, filter, test, connection, become, strategy, callback, inventory, cache, cliconf, httpapi, netconf, shell, vars. On failure returns {"error": str}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`keyword`	Yes	Search term to match against plugin names and descriptions
`namespace`	No	Optional collection namespace filter (e.g. 'netbox.netbox')
`plugin_type`	No	Plugin type filter (e.g. 'lookup', 'filter'). If omitted, searches all types.

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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, so the bar is lower. The description adds value by describing the return format ({fqcn: short_description}) and failure behavior ({'error': str}), which are beyond the annotation's scope.

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?

The description is concise with no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose, then provides return format and failure details, and lists plugin types efficiently in a structured manner.

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?

Given the presence of an output schema (not shown but indicated), the description adequately covers the tool’s behavior, return structure, and error handling. The list of plugin types provides sufficient context for effective use.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing valid plugin types and explaining the return format, which helps understand the effect of the 'keyword' and 'plugin_type' parameters.

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?

The description clearly states 'Find Ansible plugins by keyword,' which is a specific verb+resource. It lists plugin types and distinguishes from sibling tools like search_collections, search_modules, and search_docs.

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?

The description implies usage for searching plugins by keyword but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like search_modules or search_collections. The listed plugin types provide some context but no clear guidance on exclusions.

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