Skip to main content
Glama
tarnover
by tarnover

list_tasks

Preview tasks to be executed by an Ansible playbook before running it, ensuring clarity and intent alignment in automation workflows.

Instructions

List all tasks that would be executed by a playbook

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playbookYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'list_tasks' tool. It validates the playbook path, runs 'ansible-playbook --list-tasks', captures stdout, and handles errors by throwing AnsibleExecutionError.
    export async function listTasks(options: ListTasksOptions): Promise<string> {
      const playbookPath = validatePlaybookPath(options.playbook);
      
      // Build command with list-tasks option
      const command = `ansible-playbook ${playbookPath} --list-tasks`;
    
      try {
        // Execute command
        const { stdout, stderr } = await execAsync(command);
        return stdout || 'No tasks found in playbook';
      } catch (error) {
        // Handle exec error
        const execError = error as { stderr?: string; message: string };
        throw new AnsibleExecutionError(
          `Error listing tasks: ${execError.message}`,
          execError.stderr
        );
      }
    }
  • Zod schema defining the input for list_tasks tool: requires a playbook path string.
    export const ListTasksSchema = z.object({
      playbook: z.string().min(1, 'Playbook path is required'),
    });
    
    export type ListTasksOptions = z.infer<typeof ListTasksSchema>;
  • Registration of the 'list_tasks' tool in the toolDefinitions map, linking schema and handler.
    list_tasks: {
      description: 'List all tasks that would be executed by a playbook',
      schema: ListTasksSchema,
      handler: playbooks.listTasks,
    },
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the tool lists tasks but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it's a read-only operation, what format the output takes, if there are rate limits, or if it requires specific permissions. The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to understand quickly. Every word earns its place.

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?

Given the complexity of listing tasks (which may involve parsing playbooks) and the lack of annotations, output schema, and poor schema coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'tasks' entail, how they're formatted, or any dependencies, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the schema provides no semantic information. The description mentions 'playbook' but doesn't explain what this parameter represents, such as a playbook name or file path, or provide examples. It adds minimal value beyond the schema's structure.

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?

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('tasks'), specifying that these are tasks 'executed by a playbook'. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_playbook' or 'run_ad_hoc' by focusing on listing rather than execution. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from 'list_inventory', which might list different resources.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing a valid playbook name, or compare it to siblings like 'check_syntax' for validation or 'run_playbook' for execution. Usage is implied but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Related Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tarnover/mcp-ansible'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server