Check the status of a Kubernetes deployment rollout, including desired, updated, available, and unavailable replicas and whether the rollout is paused.
[READ] Rollout status: desired/updated/available/unavailable + paused.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read profile is covered, and the '[READ]' tag is somewhat redundant. However, the description goes beyond annotations by disclosing exactly what status fields are returned (desired/updated/available/unavailable + paused), which is genuinely useful given 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-loads the purpose with a clear result summary, then lists args compactly. The args section is somewhat duplicative of the schema, but with 0% schema coverage that repetition is justified rather than wasteful.
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 status tool with no output schema and no annotation richness beyond readOnlyHint, the description supplies the returned fields and documents all three parameters, leaving little an agent needs missing. Only the alternative-tool routing is absent.
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 parameter burden, and it does: name (deployment name), namespace (with the 'omit for default namespace' fallback behavior), and target (the k8s target name from config). This adds meaning beyond type-only schema fields.
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 (read) and resource (rollout status) and even enumerates the returned fields (desired/updated/available/unavailable + paused), which clearly separates it from rollout_history. It stops short of naming the sibling it is not, so it is not a full 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as rollout_history or deployment_get, which overlap with inspecting rollout state. Usage is only loosely implied by the '[READ] Rollout status' framing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.