List Kubernetes pods in a namespace with their phase, ready count, and node to monitor workload status.
List pods with phase, ready count, and node.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| label | No | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| session_name | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what the tool returns but does not indicate that it is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, permissions, or limits. The description offers minimal behavioral insight beyond the obvious 'list' action.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler or redundant content. It front-loads the verb and resource and states the output fields concisely. There is no wasted text, so it earns a high score for efficiency.
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?
While the tool is relatively simple and an output schema exists, the description omits essential context: it does not explain the parameters, does not mention filtering capabilities, and does not provide any usage context relative to sibling tools. An agent would have to infer parameter meaning from titles and defaults, which is insufficient for correct invocation.
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 0% and the description does not explain any of the three parameters (label, namespace, session_name). The description only mentions output fields, leaving parameter meaning entirely to the schema titles and defaults. This is a significant gap for a tool with optional filtering parameters.
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?
The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'pods', and specifies the returned fields (phase, ready count, node). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like k8s_list_deployments or k8s_list_namespaces, making its purpose unambiguous.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The name and description imply it is for listing pods, but there is no mention of when not to use it or which sibling to choose instead. Since many list tools exist, explicit differentiation would be helpful but is absent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.