k8scortex-mcp

taint_node

Add a taint to a Kubernetes node to control pod scheduling by specifying key, value, and effect.

Instructions

Adds a taint to a node.

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": {
      "nodeName": "<nodeName>",
      "key": "<key>",
      "value": "<value>",
      "effect": "<effect>"
    },
    "name": "taint_node"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	Yes	Taint key
`value`	Yes	Taint value
`dryRun`	No	If true, simulates the action
`effect`	Yes	Taint effect (NoSchedule, PreferNoSchedule, NoExecute)
`cluster`	No	Target cluster name (default: 'default')
`nodeName`	Yes	Name of the node

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose behavioral traits such as reversibility, effects on existing pods, required permissions, or idempotency. The minimal description leaves significant gaps.

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?

The description is a single, clear sentence. It is concise and front-loaded, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without losing brevity.

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?

Given no output schema, the description should explain what happens after tainting (e.g., effect on scheduling, any return value). It lacks this context, making it incomplete for an agent to understand full behavior.

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 all parameters have descriptions. The tool description adds no new meaning beyond the schema, so a baseline score 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 the action ('adds') and the resource ('taint to a node'), distinguishing it from sibling 'remove_taint'. It is specific and unambiguous.

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 tainting versus alternatives like cordoning or draining. The description does not mention when this tool is appropriate 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.

Deploy Server