List Kubernetes services in a namespace to display their type and cluster IP, enabling quick validation of service definitions.
List services, type, and cluster IP.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'List' reasonably implies a read-only operation, and mentioning the returned fields adds some behavioral context, but the description does not disclose edge cases, namespace-scoping behavior, or possible error conditions.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. Every word adds information about the tool's output, making it highly concise and scannable.
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?
The operation is simple and an output schema exists, which covers return-value shape. However, the lacking parameter explanations and absence of any usage guidance make the description incomplete for an agent that needs to know what 'session_name' means or how namespace selection behaves.
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%, so the description must compensate for undocumented parameters. It does not mention 'namespace' or 'session_name' at all, leaving their meaning, allowed values, and interaction with the tool largely to inference from their names and defaults.
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 uses a specific verb ('List') and a clear resource ('services'), and names two returned fields ('type', 'cluster IP'). It is sufficiently clear to distinguish from sibling tools like k8s_list_pods or k8s_list_nodes, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with those alternatives.
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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus the other k8s list tools, nor are any prerequisites or alternatives mentioned. The usage context must be inferred entirely from the tool name and generic purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.