safe-ssh-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_kubectl_describe

Run kubectl describe for a specific Kubernetes resource over SSH to inspect status, conditions, containers, and recent events on a remote host without modifying it.

Instructions

Describes a SPECIFIC kubernetes resource (kubectl describe) by running kubectl on a remote Linux host via SSH: status, conditions, containers and its recent events. kubectl must be configured for the SSH user there. resource_type is one of: pod, node, namespace, deployment, statefulset, daemonset, replicaset, job, cronjob, service, endpoints, ingress, networkpolicy, persistentvolumeclaim, persistentvolume, storageclass, horizontalpodautoscaler, poddisruptionbudget (plural and short names like 'po', 'deploy', 'svc' work too). Secrets and configmaps are NOT available. namespace is ignored for cluster-scoped resources (node, namespace, persistentvolume, storageclass).

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": {
      "resource_type": "<resource_type>",
      "name": "<name>",
      "host": "<host>",
      "user": "<user>"
    },
    "name": "get_kubectl_describe"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`host`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`port`	No
`user`	Yes
`timeout`	No
`key_path`	No
`password`	No
`namespace`	No	default
`resource_type`	Yes
`accept_new_hostkey`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv0.2.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does well on execution context (SSH to a remote host, kubectl must be preconfigured) and on what the output contains (status, conditions, containers, recent events), but never states that it is a read-only operation, nor anything about SSH auth behavior, timeout semantics, or accept_new_hostkey handling for a tool that takes credentials.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core verb and mechanism, then constraints in descending importance. Dense but every sentence carries information; the long resource_type enumeration is justified because no schema enum exists.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be spelled out, and the connection/credential parameters are largely inferable from their names. However, for a 10-parameter tool with zero annotation coverage and no schema descriptions, gaps around credential handling, timeout behavior, and host-key acceptance leave an agent guessing on operational details.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters, so the description must compensate. It does substantial work for the hardest parameter by enumerating valid resource_type values and accepting plural/short names, and it explains namespace's scoping behavior, but host, port, user, key_path, password, timeout and accept_new_hostkey get no explanation beyond their self-evident names.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb and resource ('Describes a SPECIFIC kubernetes resource (kubectl describe)') and makes the mechanism explicit (kubectl over SSH to a remote Linux host). The capitalized 'SPECIFIC' signals this is a single-resource tool rather than a listing tool, which implicitly separates it from siblings like get_kubectl_logs/get_kubectl_events, though no sibling is named directly.

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?

Gives concrete preconditions ('kubectl must be configured for the SSH user there') and an explicit exclusion ('Secrets and configmaps are NOT available'), plus the rule that namespace is ignored for cluster-scoped resources. It stops short of saying when to prefer this over get_kubectl_events or get_kubectl_logs, so it is clear context without full routing guidance.

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

Deploy Server