Retrieve details for a single Kubernetes PersistentVolumeClaim by name, with optional namespace and target selection for cluster operations.
[READ] Return detail for a single PVC by name.
Args: name: PVC name (see pvc_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 declare readOnlyHint=true. The description's [READ] tag repeats this and adds default namespace behavior ('omit for target's default namespace') plus target config origin, but does not disclose error behavior, output format, or permissions. With annotations covering safety, this is adequate but not rich.
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?
Two-line description plus a compact Args list. It is front-loaded with the read marker and purpose; every line adds value.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description does not describe what detail is returned or any error modes. Parameters and read-only nature are covered, but an agent lacks return-value context for a get 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% and all three parameters are explained: name points to pvc_list as source, namespace explains default omission, and target explains config origin. This compensates well for the lack of schema descriptions, though the name format is still minimal.
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 ('Return detail') and resource ('single PVC by name'), and the [READ] marker reinforces scope. It is clearly distinct from pvc_list, which lists multiple PVCs.
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?
References pvc_list for name lookup, implying pvc_get is for retrieving one PVC's details. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternatives among other get tools; usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.