Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
infra-ops-mcp

infra-ops-mcp

by skyvanguard
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

iac_ansible_playbook_run

Run an Ansible playbook in check mode to safely preview configuration changes with diff output, reducing risk of unintended modifications.

Instructions

[DANGEROUS] Run an Ansible playbook in check mode (dry-run with diff)

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": {
      "playbook": "<playbook>",
      "confirm": "<confirm>"
    },
    "name": "iac_ansible_playbook_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playbookYes
inventoryNo
confirmYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states check mode (non-destructive) but includes a contradictory '[DANGEROUS]' tag. It does not explain what happens if 'confirm' is false or describe any side effects, return values, or required permissions.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but the '[DANGEROUS]' prefix adds noise without clarity. It could be restructured to include parameter hints without adding length.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not cover parameter behavior, return format, error handling, or prerequisites like Ansible being available.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of the three parameters (playbook, inventory, confirm). The agent has no guidance on parameter meaning or expected values beyond the schema types.

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 it runs an Ansible playbook in check mode (dry-run with diff). The verb 'Run' and resource 'Ansible playbook' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like iac_terraform_plan or iac_ansible_inventory.

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 use for dry-run/diff preview but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives like iac_terraform_plan or mention when not to use. No exclusions or context are provided.

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