Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
k8scortex-mcp

k8scortex-mcp

by apatilgtn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

rollout_status

Check the rollout status of a Kubernetes deployment, reporting if it is complete, in-progress, or stalled.

Instructions

Checks deployment rollout status (complete, in-progress, or stalled).

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>",
      "deploymentName": "<deploymentName>"
    },
    "name": "rollout_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
clusterNoTarget cluster name (default: 'default')
namespaceYesThe Kubernetes namespace
deploymentNameYesThe name of the deployment

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.2

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the read-only nature and possible status values, but does not elaborate on error cases or additional behavior. Sufficient for a simple check.

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?

Extremely concise single sentence that is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information.

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 the simple nature of the tool and full schema coverage, the description is mostly complete. It could be slightly improved by clarifying the output format, but acceptable.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 verb 'Checks' and the resource 'deployment rollout status', listing possible outcomes (complete, in-progress, or stalled). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like scale_deployment or rollout_undo.

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. It does not mention when not to use it or provide context for decision-making among related tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools