Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ansible-mcp-server

ansible-mcp-server

by washyu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Hybrid

security-audit-accounts

Audit user accounts to detect security risks such as default accounts and unauthorized sudo access.

Instructions

Audit user accounts for security issues

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "security-audit-accounts"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkSudoNoCheck sudo access
checkDefaultsNoCheck for default accounts

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 provided; description lacks details on whether the tool modifies state, requires permissions, or produces any output. 'Audit' is vague and the parameters (checkSudo, checkDefaults) only hint at behavior.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Single sentence is concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Lacks detail but efficiently states core function.

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?

With no output schema, no annotations, and 2 boolean params, the description is too minimal. Missing details on what 'audit' produces, required permissions, or how results are returned.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both parameters. Description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states verb 'Audit' and resource 'user accounts' with purpose 'for security issues'. It distinguishes from more specific sibling tools like security-check-passwords, though could be more precise about what 'audit' entails.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like security-check-passwords or security-quick-scan. Agent must infer from name alone.

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