k8s-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_backups

List backup files from local backups, optionally filtered by cluster name or namespace, without requiring a Kubernetes connection.

Instructions

列出备份文件（仅读取本地备份目录，无需 K8s 连接）

Args: cluster_name: 集群名称（可选） namespace: 命名空间（可选）

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_backups"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`namespace`	No
`cluster_name`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the operation is read-only ('仅读取本地备份目录') and does not require K8s connection, which is key transparency for an agent. However, it does not detail filtering behavior or output format, so it is not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise and front-loaded: it starts with the core purpose, adds a critical behavioral note, then lists the args. Every sentence adds value and there is no redundancy.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no annotations or output schema, and the description omits important contextual details such as how the optional parameters filter the backup listing and what the return format looks like. This makes the description insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior in a real interaction.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description should compensate. It only restates the parameter names (集群名称, 命名空间) and marks them optional, which the schema already indicates via defaults. It does not explain how cluster_name or namespace affect the backup listing, leaving the parameters semantically underspecified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool lists backup files and adds the specific context that it only reads a local backup directory without requiring a K8s connection. This makes the tool's purpose unambiguous and distinguishes it from K8s-dependent sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for use: it is for listing backups locally without K8s connectivity. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it falls just short of full usage guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.