Analyze component versions in a Kubernetes cluster to identify outdated or incompatible releases. Filter by component or namespace for targeted checks.
Analizar versiones de componentes en el cluster
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| component | No | Componente específico a analizar (opcional) | |
| namespace | No | Namespace específico (opcional) |
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. "Analizar" implies a read-style analysis, but the description does not disclose side effects, output behavior, or whether the analysis compares against a baseline or only reports current versions.
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 redundant words or filler. It is concise, but its brevity comes at the cost of important behavioral and usage detail.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain what kind of analysis is performed and what an agent can expect as a result. It leaves the agent unable to anticipate return format or confidently choose this tool over compare_versions or get_outdated_components.
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 100%, so both params are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, though the cluster context weakly implies the parameters refine the analysis scope.
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 states a specific resource ("versiones de componentes en el cluster") and a verb ("Analizar"), giving a basic sense of what the tool does. However, "analyze" is vague and does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like compare_versions or get_outdated_components, which also operate on component versions.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus its version-related siblings. The optional component and namespace parameters imply some filtering behavior, but no context, prerequisites, or exclusions are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.