There is only one tool, so there is no possibility of misselection between tools. The single tool's purpose (lint a Dockerfile or Kubernetes manifest) is clearly stated, and its two input modes (`content` vs `path`) are handled as parameters rather than as separate overlapping tools.

With a single tool named `lint`, there is no mixed convention to violate; the name is a clear, conventional verb. Consistency is trivially satisfied, though there is no multi-tool pattern to demonstrate predictability.

One tool is on the thin side, but the server's scope is genuinely narrow (static analysis of Dockerfiles and K8s manifests), so a single entry point is defensible. It sits at the borderline of '1-2 tools feels thin' rather than being an extreme mismatch, since the tool itself does substantial work (grade, score, findings, fixes, references).

The core linting lifecycle — submit a manifest and get scored findings with fixes and references — is covered for both Dockerfile and Kubernetes inputs. However, obvious adjacent operations are absent: auto-fix/remediation, batch or directory-level linting, and any rule/config discovery, which leaves agents at a dead end once findings are returned.