List Kubernetes pods with optional namespace and label selector filters to inspect cluster resources.
Obtener información de pods en Kubernetes
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| selector | No | Selector de labels (opcional) | |
| namespace | No | Namespace específico (opcional, por defecto todos) |
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 must carry behavioral disclosure itself. 'Obtener información' communicates that this is a read-style operation, but it does not mention return format, pagination, default namespace behavior, or any access requirements.
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. It is concise and easy to parse, though it could use the brevity to include additional behavioral or 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?
For a simple tool with two optional parameters and a fully documented schema, the description is minimally adequate. However, it omits return value expectations and does not provide enough context for an agent to choose confidently between this and related Kubernetes tools without relying on the name.
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 the input schema already documents both parameters. The description adds no extra parameter context, which meets the baseline for a fully covered schema.
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 identifies the resource (pods) and domain (Kubernetes) and implies a read operation ('Obtener información'). It is distinct enough from siblings like get_helm_releases or get_cluster_info, though 'información' is less specific than 'list' or 'describe'.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the resource name 'pods' makes the intended use reasonably clear by implication. It does not mention exclusions or when a sibling would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.