Retrieve details for a single Kubernetes DaemonSet by name, with optional namespace or target, to inspect its configuration and status.
[READ] Return detail for a single daemonset by name.
Args: name: DaemonSet name (see daemonset_list). namespace: Namespace; omit for the target's default namespace. target: k8s target name from config.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| 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, and the "[READ]" tag is consistent with that rather than adding new information. The description does add useful behavioral detail about namespace resolution (omit to use the target's default namespace) and where to source names, but says nothing about failure modes, permissions, or the returned detail. Adequate against a lower annotation-era bar.
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?
Two front-loaded sentences plus a tight Args block with no padding; each parameter line earns its place. Slightly more verbose than strictly needed for the required-only name argument.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations beyond readOnlyHint, the description should say at least roughly what detail is returned or how a missing daemonset is reported. It covers inputs well but leaves the return contract and failure semantics 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 whole burden, and it documents all three parameters: name format and where to find it, namespace defaulting behavior, and that target is a k8s target name from config. This meaningfully exceeds the bare schema, though it doesn't specify name casing/fully-qualified forms or error behavior for an unknown target.
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 and resource ("Return detail for a single daemonset by name") and implicitly contrasts with the listing counterpart by pointing to daemonset_list for names. An agent can distinguish this from daemonset_list, deployment_get, or statefulset_get without opening any schema.
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?
Usage is only implied: the description tells the agent to see daemonset_list for names and to omit namespace for the target's default, which hints at the read-a-single-object workflow. It never states when this tool is preferred over pod_describe, workload_readiness_rca, or rollout_status, nor what happens if the daemonset does not exist.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.