Retrieve the list of nodes in a Kubernetes cluster, with optional cluster name specification.
Lists cluster nodes.
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_nodes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | No | Target cluster name (default: 'default') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description provides no behavioral details beyond listing. With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does not disclose whether it lists all nodes, uses a default cluster, or any side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with no waste, but it is very terse. While concise, it could benefit from additional context without becoming verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description minimally covers what the tool does. However, it lacks details about the return format or filtering behavior, which could be inferred but is not explicit.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with the 'cluster' parameter already described. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter or its usage, so it meets the baseline of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'Lists cluster nodes.' uses a specific verb ('list') and resource ('cluster nodes'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform modifications (e.g., drain_node, taint_node) or list node pools.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 like list_node_pools or get_cluster_info. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or when not to use it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.