Retrieve detailed information for a single Kubernetes pod by name, with optional namespace and target selection.
[READ] Return detail for a single pod by name.
Args: name: Pod name (see pod_list). namespace: Namespace; omit to use 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?
readOnlyHint=true already declares the safety profile, so the '[READ]' tag is redundant. The description does add genuinely new behavioral context — omitting namespace falls back to the target's default namespace — but says nothing about what 'detail' is returned or its format.
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 a single sentence, followed by a compact Args block that maps each parameter to its meaning. Little waste, though the bracketed '[READ]' prefix duplicates 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?
With no output schema and only readOnlyHint in annotations, the description should clarify what 'detail' means (raw manifest vs summarized fields). It covers inputs adequately but leaves the return contract unspecified for a detail-retrieval 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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the load, and it does: it explains name (pod name, with a pod_list cross-reference), namespace (omit to use default), and target (k8s target from config) for all three parameters. It substantially compensates for the empty schema, though it gives no format or example values.
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 pod by name') with clear singular scope, distinguishing it from the list-family siblings (pod_list, event_list). However, it does not differentiate from pod_describe, which is also a single-pod detail sibling, leaving ambiguity about which one an agent should pick.
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: it points to pod_list for name lookup and explains the namespace default. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion against pod_describe or pod_logs, so the agent must infer the choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.