List a Kubernetes deployment's rollout revisions from its replicasets to inspect release history. Provide the deployment name; optionally set namespace and target.
[READ] List a deployment's rollout revisions (from its replicasets).
Args: name: Deployment name. 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?
The [READ] tag and readOnlyHint=true already establish the safe-read profile. The description adds the useful detail that revisions derive from replicasets, but says nothing about ordering, how many revisions are returned, or pagination, so it adds only moderate context beyond the annotation.
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, then a tight Args list. No filler sentences; each line maps to a parameter.
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?
A read tool with no output schema and three documented params is adequately covered for invocation, but the description omits anything about the returned revision structure or ordering, which the agent must guess. Adequate, not rich.
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 largely does: name is the deployment name, namespace defaults to the target's default namespace, and target maps to the config entry. Only target's meaning ("k8s target name from config") remains somewhat thin.
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 a deployment's rollout revisions") and adds the source of those revisions ("from its replicasets"), which is a meaningful clarification. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like rollout_status or undo_list, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
The description never says when to use this versus rollout_status, undo_list, or replicaset_list, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is only implied by the tool name, leaving the agent to infer routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.