List Kubernetes DaemonSets with namespace, desired, ready, and available counts to monitor node-level workloads across a cluster or specific namespace.
[READ] List daemonsets (name, namespace, desired/ready/available, 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 description adds the returned column set, which is useful context absent from the output schema, but does not disclose pagination, auth requirements, or rate limits.
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?
Extremely tight: one line for purpose and an Args section for the two parameters. The [READ] marker is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.
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?
For a simple list tool with no output schema, the description supplies the returned fields and both parameter meanings. It does not mention pagination or label filtering, but those are not present in the schema either, so the core call is adequately specified.
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 full burden and documents both parameters: namespace (omit for all namespaces) and target (k8s target name from config). This adds meaning beyond the bare schema, though the target definition is somewhat terse.
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 (daemonsets), and enumerates the returned fields (name, namespace, desired/ready/available, age). This clearly distinguishes it from daemonset_get and other list tools.
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 implied by the name and the [READ] marker, and the namespace arg notes 'omit for all namespaces'. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose daemonset_list over daemonset_get or other list siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.