Retrieve concise command references and mental models for Ansible, kubectl, subnetting, and Terraform to answer CLI and networking questions during DevOps work.
Instant terminal lookup for dense command references and mental models: "ansible", "kubectl", "subnetting" (CIDR magic number), or "terraform".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | Yes | The cheat sheet topic |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does signal a lightweight read-style lookup ('instant', static reference content). However, it says nothing about the response shape (e.g., markdown block vs. structured sections), length, or whether content is static or fetched, which are the remaining behavioral facts an agent would want.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the topic list is placed where the agent needs it. The inline parenthetical for 'subnetting' is slightly awkward to scan but is not wasted text.
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?
With one enum-constrained parameter, no output schema, and no nested objects, this is a simple tool and the description plus schema cover what's needed to invoke it correctly. Only the return format is left unstated, which is a minor gap for a cheat-sheet tool.
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% with an enum, so the baseline is 3; the description earns extra credit by glossing 'subnetting' as 'CIDR magic number', telling the agent what that value actually returns. The other three topics are only restated, not elaborated.
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 states the resource clearly ('dense command references and mental models') and enumerates the exact topics covered, which lets an agent map it to cheat-sheet retrieval rather than to siblings like generate_k8s_manifest or decode_error. The verb is only implied ('lookup'), so it stops short of a fully explicit verb+resource statement.
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?
'Instant terminal lookup' implies the usage context (fast reference while working in a terminal), but there are no explicit when-to-use/when-not conditions and no named alternatives among the siblings. An agent can infer this is the reference-lookup tool, but must reason about it rather than being told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.