Fetch recent Kubernetes events for a namespace to diagnose deployment failures, OOMKills, or pod scheduling issues.
Fetches recent Kubernetes events for a specific namespace, crucial for correlating deployment failures, OOMKills, or pod scheduling issues.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of events to return (default: 50) | |
| namespace | Yes | The Kubernetes namespace to query (e.g., 'production', 'staging') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Fetches' implies a read-only operation and 'recent' suggests a time-bounded result, but there is no disclosure of auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or return shape.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the operation and scope, and the use-case clause earns its place by clarifying intent. No redundancy or filler.
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 two-parameter read tool, the description covers purpose, scope, and key diagnostic use cases, and the schema documents all parameters. It lacks return format and pagination details, but with no output schema and no annotations those are minor gaps for this operation.
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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions (namespace, limit default 50). The tool description does not add syntax, format, or constraints beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Fetches) and resource (Kubernetes events) scoped to a namespace, and the use cases (deployment failures, OOMKills, scheduling) make its role distinct from sibling tools like get_prometheus-metrics or search_logs.
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?
Gives clear context for when the tool is useful—correlating deployment failures, OOMKills, and pod scheduling issues—but does not name alternatives or state when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.