Cloud DevOps MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Review Kubernetes Deployment

review_kubernetes_deployment

Read-onlyIdempotent

Assess Kubernetes workload production readiness from YAML or facts, checking probes, resources, replicas, disruption protection, and exposure to flag reliability gaps before deploy.

Instructions

Evaluate Kubernetes workload production readiness and reliability from structured facts or multi-document YAML, including probes, resources, replicas, disruption protection and exposure. Use this for deployability/readiness; for workload security hardening, use review_kubernetes_security. It examines supplied evidence only and does not connect to a Kubernetes cluster.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`replicas`	No	Configured replica count used to assess availability and redundancy.
`namespace`	No	Kubernetes namespace containing the workload.
`runsAsRoot`	No	Whether the workload is configured to run containers as root.
`manifestYaml`	No	Deployment, StatefulSet or DaemonSet YAML, optionally with Service, Ingress and PodDisruptionBudget documents.
`workloadName`	No	Workload name when raw manifest YAML is not the only source of identity.
`usesLatestTag`	No	Whether any container image uses the mutable latest tag.
`hasLivenessProbe`	No	Whether workload containers define liveness probes.
`hasReadinessProbe`	No	Whether workload containers define readiness probes.
`hasResourceLimits`	No	Whether workload containers define CPU or memory limits.
`hasResourceRequests`	No	Whether workload containers define CPU or memory requests.
`exposesPublicService`	No	Whether the workload is exposed through a public Service or ingress path.
`hasPodDisruptionBudget`	No	Whether a PodDisruptionBudget protects workload availability during voluntary disruption.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`evidence`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`namespace`	Yes
`strengths`	Yes
`workloadName`	Yes
`uncertainties`	Yes
`readinessLevel`	Yes
`readinessScore`	Yes
`recommendedControls`	Yes
`assessmentConfidence`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed12 schema fields changedv0.14.0Oct 3, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / exposesPublicService / description

Added value: +"Whether the workload is exposed through a public Service or ingress path."

addedInput schema / properties / hasLivenessProbe / description

Added value: +"Whether workload containers define liveness probes."

addedInput schema / properties / hasPodDisruptionBudget / description

Added value: +"Whether a PodDisruptionBudget protects workload availability during voluntary disruption."

addedInput schema / properties / hasReadinessProbe / description

Added value: +"Whether workload containers define readiness probes."

addedInput schema / properties / hasResourceLimits / description

Added value: +"Whether workload containers define CPU or memory limits."

addedInput schema / properties / hasResourceRequests / description

Added value: +"Whether workload containers define CPU or memory requests."

changedInput schema / properties / manifestYaml / description

Previous value: -"Deployment/StatefulSet/DaemonSet YAML, optionally with Service, Ingress and PodDisruptionBudget documents."New value: +"Deployment, StatefulSet or DaemonSet YAML, optionally with Service, Ingress and PodDisruptionBudget documents."

addedInput schema / properties / namespace / description

Added value: +"Kubernetes namespace containing the workload."

addedInput schema / properties / replicas / description

Added value: +"Configured replica count used to assess availability and redundancy."

addedInput schema / properties / runsAsRoot / description

Added value: +"Whether the workload is configured to run containers as root."

addedInput schema / properties / usesLatestTag / description

Added value: +"Whether any container image uses the mutable latest tag."

addedInput schema / properties / workloadName / description

Added value: +"Workload name when raw manifest YAML is not the only source of identity."

First observedv0.4.0Oct 1, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: it operates on 'supplied evidence only and does not connect to a Kubernetes cluster,' which tells the agent not to expect live cluster state. It stops short of describing return shape, though an output schema exists.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: capability and scope first, sibling routing second, evidence-only constraint third. Zero filler and the scope statement is front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

With 12 optional parameters, an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies exactly the missing pieces: what it assesses, how it routes against its security sibling, and that it is offline/evidence-based. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is absent.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% across 12 parameters, so the schema already carries field-level semantics. The description adds framing the schema does not: the two accepted input modes (structured facts or multi-document YAML) and the fact that the checked dimensions map to the boolean flags (probes, resources, replicas, disruption protection, exposure).

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?

States a specific verb ('Evaluate') plus resource ('Kubernetes workload') and enumerates the readiness dimensions it covers: probes, resources, replicas, disruption protection and exposure. It also names the sibling it is not (review_kubernetes_security), so an agent can differentiate without opening either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicit routing: 'Use this for deployability/readiness; for workload security hardening, use review_kubernetes_security.' It gives both the when-to-use and the when-to-use-something-else with the alternative named, leaving nothing to inference.

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

Deploy Server