k8scortex-mcp

create_network_policy

Create Kubernetes NetworkPolicies using basic configuration or raw YAML manifests to control pod network traffic.

Instructions

Creates a new NetworkPolicy. Use either basic configuration or provide a raw YAML manifest.

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": {
      "namespace": "<namespace>"
    },
    "name": "create_network_policy"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`dryRun`	No	If true, simulates the action without making changes
`cluster`	No	Target cluster name (default: 'default')
`namespace`	Yes	The Kubernetes namespace
`policyName`	No	The name of the NetworkPolicy
`podSelector`	No	Label selector for the pods this policy applies to
`policyTypes`	No	List of policy types (Ingress, Egress)
`yamlManifest`	No	Full YAML manifest for advanced NetworkPolicy creation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions creation but does not address idempotency, error handling, or permissions. This is adequate but lacks depth.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is concise with a single sentence that front-loads the purpose. It could be slightly more structured but achieves brevity without losing key information.

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?

With 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficiently complete. It lacks details on return values, mode selection logic, and error scenarios.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all 7 parameters. The description adds vague guidance on using two modes but does not clarify parameter interactions or constraints beyond the schema. Baseline 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 creates a new NetworkPolicy and mentions two configuration modes (basic or raw YAML). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the resource type.

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 guidance on using basic configuration or raw YAML, implying two usage paths. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool over alternatives, though no direct sibling exists for network policy creation.

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

Deploy Server