Retrieve details for a single Kubernetes deployment by name, optionally specifying namespace and target.
[READ] Return detail for a single deployment by name.
Args: name: Deployment name (see deployment_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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the namespace argument defaults to the target's default namespace when omitted, and target comes from config. It omits error behavior (e.g., not-found).
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 [READ] marker and purpose, followed by a compact arg list. Every line earns its place given the empty schema descriptions, though the Args block is somewhat mechanical.
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, the description should say more about what 'detail' is returned, but it only says 'Return detail.' Safety and parameters are adequately covered, so this is the main remaining gap for a read tool.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description carries the param burden and does it well, documenting all three: name (deployment name, cross-referenced to deployment_list), namespace (defaulting behavior), and target (k8s target name from config). It genuinely adds meaning the bare schema lacks.
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 with clear scope: 'Return detail for a single deployment by name.' The [READ] tag and the single-vs-list distinction make it identifiable, though it does not explicitly name deployment_list/delete_deployment as the alternatives an agent must choose between.
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 rather than stated: the reader infers you call this to inspect one deployment. It points to deployment_list only for name lookup, not as the routing alternative when the agent just wants a list. No when-not guidance or prerequisites are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.