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

mcp-server-kubernetes

by ACRT-EVAL
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

delete_pod

Removes a Kubernetes pod by name and namespace, optionally ignoring not-found errors, to clean up workloads or recover from failed deployments.

Instructions

Delete a 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>"
    },
    "name": "delete_pod"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes
namespaceYes
ignoreNotFoundNo

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 burden. 'Delete' signals a destructive mutation, but nothing is said about irreversibility, graceful termination/grace period, RBAC requirements, cascading effects on dependent resources, or whether the operation blocks until the pod is gone.

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?

It is a single efficient sentence with no filler, which is good structurally, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness for a destructive 3-parameter operation.

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?

For a destructive tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot tell what gets destroyed, whether dependents are affected, how failures are reported, or how ignoreNotFound alters behavior.

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 mentions no parameters at all. The non-obvious 'ignoreNotFound' flag (what happens when the pod is absent, whether errors are suppressed) is completely undocumented, and even the required name/namespace pairing is left to the schema.

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 ('Delete a Kubernetes pod'), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like cleanup or describe_pod, so the differentiation is left to the tool name alone.

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 tool versus alternatives such as cleanup, nor any mention of preconditions like checking pod state first with describe_pod or get_logs. The only implied usage is the obvious 'delete when you want a pod gone'.

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