list_kubernetes_clustersList Kubernetes clusters in your account with IDs, status, version, and node counts, using pagination to retrieve all clusters when needed.
List the Kubernetes clusters in your account with their IDs, status, version, and node counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number, 1-indexed. Defaults to 1. | |
| pageSize | No | Items per page (max 500). Defaults to 50; pass page to fetch more. |
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, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond that by naming the returned fields (IDs, status, version, node counts) and scoping results to "your account", which is meaningful since 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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every clause carries information: the resource, the account scope, and the returned fields.
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 simple, non-destructive, two-parameter list tool this is largely complete, and naming the returned fields compensates for the absent output schema. The only mild gap is that neither the description nor annotations signal pagination behavior beyond what the parameter schema implies.
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 100%: page and pageSize both have descriptions covering defaults, maximums, and how to fetch more. The description adds nothing about parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"List the Kubernetes clusters in your account" gives a specific verb and resource, and the contrast with the singular get_kubernetes_cluster sibling is clear from the name and description. It stops short of explicitly naming the sibling it differs from, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.
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 implied by the word "List" versus the get_* siblings, but the description never states when to prefer this tool over get_kubernetes_cluster or list_kubernetes_versions. No exclusions, prerequisites, or pagination advice appear in the description text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.