List Kubernetes ConfigMaps for a target cluster, optionally scoped to a namespace, with name, namespace, key count, and age for configuration audits.
[READ] List configmaps (name, namespace, key count, age).
Args: namespace: Namespace; omit for all namespaces. target: k8s target name from config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| target | No | ||
| namespace | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.8.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the '[READ]' prefix is redundant with that. The description does add useful context that it returns summary fields and can span all namespaces, but says nothing about volume, pagination, or truncation behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with the essential purpose and return fields, then a compact args block. Every line earns its place, though the '[READ]' prefix is mildly redundant with the annotation.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by naming the returned fields. For a two-optional-param list tool with a readOnly annotation, this covers what an agent needs; only multi-namespace behavior edge cases are unstated.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the entire load: it defines namespace semantics ('omit for all namespaces') and explains target as the k8s target name from config. Both parameters gain meaning the schema alone does not provide.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb (List) and resource (configmaps), and even enumerates the returned fields (name, namespace, key count, age). It is clearly distinguishishable from configmap_get, though it doesn't explicitly name the sibling boundary.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
'omit for all namespaces' gives usable scoping guidance, but there is no explicit when-to-use-this-vs-configmap_get or when-not guidance. Usage is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.