AgentsID Guard

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

kubectl_run

Runs kubectl commands, enforcing permission rules for read, write, and destructive operations to ensure safe Kubernetes management.

Instructions

Run a kubectl command. Read ops (get, describe, logs) require k8s.read.. Write ops (apply, create) require k8s.write.. Destructive ops (delete, drain) require k8s.danger.*.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "command": "<command>"
    },
    "name": "kubectl_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`command`	Yes	kubectl command (e.g., 'get pods', 'logs my-pod -f', 'apply -f deploy.yaml')

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Aug 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses permission requirements for different command types, which is valuable. However, it omits behavioral details like output format, error handling, or whether commands run in a sandboxed environment.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by concise permission guidelines. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose and permission requirements adequately. It lacks details on execution behavior or return values, but given the tool's simplicity and standard command-runner pattern, completeness is sufficient.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already describes the 'command' parameter with examples. The description adds semantic meaning by categorizing commands into read/write/destructive ops and linking them to permission requirements, enriching the parameter beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Run a kubectl command' with a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like shell_run, git_run, and aws_run. The examples (get, apply, delete) further clarify scope.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for Kubernetes operations and provides explicit permission categories for read, write, and destructive commands. It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the tool name and context make the intended use clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.