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

mcp-server-kubernetes

by ACRT-EVAL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_pod

Create a Kubernetes pod in a specified namespace from a template such as nginx or alpine, with optional command overrides for deployment and testing.

Instructions

Create a new Kubernetes pod

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "namespace": "<namespace>",
      "template": "<template>"
    },
    "name": "create_pod"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
commandNo
templateYes
namespaceYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says nothing about side effects, whether the pod starts immediately, what the 'template' enum values actually provision, failure modes, or permissions required — all critical for a mutating cluster operation.

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 single sentence is front-loaded and wastes no words, but it is under-specified rather than concise — brevity comes at the cost of all the information an agent needs.

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 four-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what the template values mean or what a successful call produces.

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% across four parameters, and the description adds nothing — name, namespace, command, and especially the template enum (ubuntu/nginx/busybox/alpine) are completely unexplained. The description must compensate here and does not.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Create a new Kubernetes pod'), which is clear and distinct from read-only siblings like list_pods or delete_pod. However, it offers no explicit differentiation from create_deployment, which is the sibling an agent could most plausibly confuse it with.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this versus create_deployment, no prerequisites (e.g. whether the namespace must already exist), and no mention of alternatives. The agent must infer everything from the name.

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