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

mcp-server-kubernetes

by ACRT-EVAL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

create_deployment

Creates a new Kubernetes deployment in a specified namespace from a template (nginx, ubuntu, busybox, alpine) with configurable replicas and optional ports.

Instructions

Create a new Kubernetes deployment

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_deployment"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
portsNo
replicasNo
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 implies a mutation by saying "Create," but it does not disclose required permissions, side effects, idempotency, or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, so its structure is clean. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than efficient communication of the necessary context.

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

Completeness1/5

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

There is no output schema, no annotations, and no parameter description coverage, yet the description does not compensate by explaining required parameters, the template enum, deployment behavior, or return values. For a five-parameter mutation tool, this is insufficient context.

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% and the description does not mention any of the five parameters, including required fields like name, namespace, and template. The enum for template and defaults for replicas are documented only structurally in the schema, with no added semantic guidance.

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 states a specific verb and resource: "Create a new Kubernetes deployment." It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish the tool from siblings such as create_pod or explain when a deployment is preferable to a pod.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like create_pod, list_deployments, or other sibling tools. Usage is only implied by the verb "Create."

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