k8scortex-mcp

compare_clusters

Compare a Kubernetes application's running version or state across two clusters, supporting ArgoCD and Flux GitOps engines.

Instructions

Compares the running version/state of an application across two clusters.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "engine": "<engine>",
      "namespace": "<namespace>",
      "appName": "<appName>",
      "clusterA": "<clusterA>",
      "clusterB": "<clusterB>"
    },
    "name": "compare_clusters"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`engine`	Yes	GitOps engine ('argocd' or 'flux')
`appName`	Yes	The name of the application/kustomization
`clusterA`	Yes	First cluster to compare
`clusterB`	Yes	Second cluster to compare
`namespace`	Yes	The namespace of the application/kustomization

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states 'compares', which suggests a read-only operation, but does not confirm if it has side effects, requires permissions, or has rate limits. More detail is needed for a non-annotated tool.

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 a single sentence of 11 words, front-loading the action and resource. No unnecessary words.

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 5 required parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description does not explain the return format, what 'compare' means in output, or any prerequisites. Given the complexity, this is insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's behavior.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 5 parameters. The description does not add parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 compares the running version/state of an application across two clusters, using specific verb 'compares' and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on single clusters or individual resources.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies usage for comparing applications across two clusters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like get_gitops_app_status or get_gitops_diff. No exclusions or when-not-to-use guidance is provided.

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

Deploy Server