Identify outdated Helm releases or components in a Kubernetes cluster. Specify a namespace to scope the check and get a list of components needing updates.
Obtener componentes desactualizados
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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. It only restates the tool's name and does not explain whether the operation is read-only, what 'outdated' means, how results are computed, or what impact the call has. The verb 'get' weakly implies read-only, but that is not explicit.
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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than effectively concise. A single phrase with no supporting context does not earn its place as a useful tool description for an AI agent.
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?
Given no output schema, no annotations, and sibling tools that could overlap, the description is incomplete. It does not state what kind of components are checked, what response to expect, or how namespace affects the result, leaving important gaps for correct invocation and interpretation.
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%, and the only parameter, namespace, is documented as optional with a clear meaning. The description itself adds no extra semantics beyond the schema, but since the schema already covers the parameter, this is adequate.
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 clear action ('Obtener' / get) and a resource ('componentes desactualizados' / outdated components), so the agent knows the basic intent. However, 'componentes' is vague and does not specify what kind of components (pods, Helm releases, cluster resources) or how it differs from siblings like analyze_versions or compare_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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus the sibling tools. The description only mentions the optional namespace parameter and provides no exclusions, prerequisites, or context about when this is the right choice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.