ping
Verify the Kubernetes server's responsiveness and confirm the connection is alive.
Instructions
Verify that the counterpart is still responsive and the connection is alive.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Verify the Kubernetes server's responsiveness and confirm the connection is alive.
Verify that the counterpart is still responsive and the connection is alive.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true, and description adds that it verifies connection, consistent with no side effects.
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?
Single sentence, concise and directly states purpose without wasted words.
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 ping with no parameters and output schema, description sufficiently explains behavior and expected outcome.
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?
No parameters, so no need for additional parameter description; schema coverage is 100%.
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?
Description clearly states the tool verifies connectivity and responsiveness, which is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform Kubernetes operations.
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?
Implied that this is for checking liveness, but no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives; however, context makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Flux159/mcp-server-kubernetes'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server