Fetch details for a single Kubernetes Job by name; specify namespace or target to inspect job status and configuration.
[READ] Return detail for a single job by name.
Args: name: Job name (see job_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] prefix merely restates that safety profile rather than adding to it. Nothing is said about error behavior for missing jobs, permissions required, or response shape, and no new behavioral context is contributed beyond what the annotation already provides.
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?
The purpose is front-loaded in one sentence, followed by a compact Args block with one line per parameter. Every line carries information; only the bracket tag is arguably redundant with the annotation.
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 read-only single-resource getter with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and the meaning of each of its three inputs. Return-value details are not needed without an output schema, so the remaining gap is minor.
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?
With schema coverage at 0%, the description carries the full burden and does document all three parameters: name with a pointer to job_list, namespace with its default-namespace semantics, and target as a config-sourced k8s target. This meaningfully compensates for the bare schema, though formats or accepted value shapes are not elaborated.
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?
"Return detail for a single job by name" gives a specific verb (return detail) and resource (job) with a scope qualifier (single, by name) that separates it from the plural job_list sibling. It stops short of naming job_list as the alternative, relying on a parenthetical pointer for names instead of an explicit contrast.
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 agent can infer this tool is for inspecting one job rather than enumerating them, and the "(see job_list)" note hints at the discovery flow. There is no explicit when-to-use vs cronjob_get/pod_get guidance and no stated exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.