k8s-aiops

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

cronjob_list

Read-only

List Kubernetes CronJobs with name, namespace, schedule, suspend status, active count, and age; omit namespace to scan all or select a target.

Instructions

[READ] List cronjobs (name, namespace, schedule, suspend, active, age).

Args: namespace: Namespace; omit for all namespaces. target: k8s target name from config.

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": "cronjob_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`target`	No
`namespace`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.8.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does 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]' tag is corroborating. The genuinely additive disclosure is the list of returned fields, useful because there is no output schema. No pagination or ordering behavior is mentioned, so it falls short of a 5.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Front-loaded [READ] marker, one-line purpose with return fields, then a tight Args block. No filler; every sentence earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple two-optional-param list tool with readOnlyHint annotation, the definition covers what an agent needs. The absence of an output schema is partly offset by the enumerated return fields, though result volume or default behavior is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden, and it does: namespace (omit for all) and target (k8s target name from config) both get meaning. 'target' remains somewhat vague, keeping it out of 5 territory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('List cronjobs') and even enumerates the fields returned (name, namespace, schedule, suspend, active, age). This clearly separates it from cronjob_get (single resource) and job_list (different resource).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives argument-level guidance ('omit for all namespaces', target name from config) but no explicit routing to alternatives such as cronjob_get for a single cronjob. 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.