k8scortex-mcp

get_pdb_status

Retrieve detailed status and covered pods for a PodDisruptionBudget to verify disruption policies in a Kubernetes cluster.

Instructions

Returns detailed status and covered pods for a PodDisruptionBudget.

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>",
      "pdbName": "<pdbName>"
    },
    "name": "get_pdb_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cluster`	No	Target cluster name (default: 'default')
`pdbName`	Yes	PDB name
`namespace`	Yes	Namespace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Description discloses the output (detailed status and covered pods) but does not mention authentication requirements, potential errors, or side effects. No annotations exist to supplement, so the description is minimally adequate.

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 is concise and front-loaded with essential information. No unnecessary words, though could be slightly more structured.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Tool is simple but description lacks details on return format or error conditions. Without output schema, more context would be beneficial, but it is still adequate for basic use.

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% and the description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 applies as the description does not compensate or enrich parameter understanding.

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 action ('returns'), the resource ('status and covered pods'), and the target ('PodDisruptionBudget'). It is specific and distinct from sibling tools like 'list_pod_disruption_budgets' which list PDBs rather than a single status.

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 (e.g., list_pod_disruption_budgets). The description does not specify prerequisites or usage context.

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

Deploy Server