k8scortex-mcp

get_gitops_app_status

Check the health and sync status of an ArgoCD Application or Flux Kustomization in a specified namespace and cluster.

Instructions

Gets the health and sync status of an ArgoCD Application or Flux Kustomization.

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>"
    },
    "name": "get_gitops_app_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`engine`	Yes	GitOps engine ('argocd' or 'flux')
`appName`	Yes	The name of the application/kustomization
`cluster`	No	Target cluster name (default: 'default')
`namespace`	Yes	The namespace of the application/kustomization

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It indicates a read operation ('gets') but does not disclose potential error conditions, permissions required, or whether results are cached. For a simple status read, this is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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?

Single sentence, no redundant information. However, it could be slightly expanded to include output hints without becoming wordy.

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?

No output schema is provided, and the description does not detail the returned fields beyond 'health and sync status'. For a 4-parameter tool, the description alone is insufficient to fully inform the agent about return structure.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description does not add further meaning beyond the schema, so 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?

Description clearly states it 'Gets the health and sync status of an ArgoCD Application or Flux Kustomization'. It specifies a concrete verb and resource types, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_flux_kustomizations (which lists) or sync_gitops_app (which syncs).

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_gitops_diff, list_flux_kustomizations, or list_k8s_resources. The agent is left to infer usage context from the name and basic purpose.

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

Deploy Server