k8scortex-mcp

list_flux_sources

List Flux source objects across clusters, including URLs, references, and readiness status for GitRepository, HelmRepository, OCIRepository, and Bucket sources.

Instructions

Lists Flux source objects (GitRepository, HelmRepository, OCIRepository, Bucket) with their URL, ref, and ready status.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_flux_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cluster`	No	Target cluster name (default: 'default')
`namespace`	No	Namespace to list sources in (omit for all namespaces)
`sourceType`	No	Source kind: 'gitrepository' \| 'helmrepository' \| 'ocirepository' \| 'bucket' (omit for all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output fields but does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, non-destructive, or any permissions needed. For a list tool, this is adequate but not exceptional.

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 18 words, no wasted words, and front-loads the verb 'Lists'. It is concise and structured effectively.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given there are 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the key aspects: what objects are listed and what fields are returned. It could reiterate the filtering parameters for completeness, but it is mostly adequate.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage for all three parameters. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 it lists Flux source objects, specifies the types (GitRepository, HelmRepository, OCIRepository, Bucket), and indicates the output fields (URL, ref, ready status). It is a specific verb+resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_flux_kustomizations.

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 clear context for listing sources, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or any exclusions. Since sibling tools cover different resource types, the usage is implied, but no direct guidance is given.

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

Deploy Server