List Kubernetes deployments with namespace, desired/ready/available replica counts, and age; optionally filter by namespace or target to inspect rollout health.
[READ] List deployments (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, and the '[READ]' prefix reinforces it. Beyond that, the description discloses the return shape (name, namespace, desired/ready/available, age), which is genuinely useful behavioral context since there is no output schema.
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 tag and core action, then a tight two-item args block. Every sentence earns its place with no filler.
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?
Complete enough for a no-arg-required list tool: purpose, return fields, and both parameters are covered despite zero schema coverage and no output schema. Only pagination/sorting behavior, if any, is left unmentioned.
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 does so: 'namespace' including the omit-for-all-namespaces behavior, and 'target' as the k8s target name from config. Both are defined in terms 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+resource ('List deployments') and even names the columns returned. It is distinguishable from deployment_get by the plural listing verb, though it never explicitly says how it differs from the singular sibling.
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 list semantics and the 'omit for all namespaces' hint, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance nor any mention of the neighboring deployment_get for single-deployment inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.