k8scortex-mcp

update_configmap

Update a Kubernetes ConfigMap by patching its data with key-value pairs. Supports dry-run simulation and multi-cluster targeting.

Instructions

Updates an existing ConfigMap by patching its data.

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>",
      "configMapName": "<configMapName>",
      "data": "<data>"
    },
    "name": "update_configmap"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`data`	Yes	Key-value string pairs to merge into the ConfigMap
`dryRun`	No	If true, simulates the action without making changes
`cluster`	No	Target cluster name (default: 'default')
`namespace`	Yes	The Kubernetes namespace
`configMapName`	Yes	The name of the ConfigMap to update

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only says 'updates' and 'patching', but fails to mention whether it merges or replaces data, idempotency, error conditions, or required permissions. The dryRun parameter's behavior is implied but not clarified.

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?

A single, well-structured sentence that immediately conveys the core purpose. No redundant words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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?

The description is too brief for a tool with 5 parameters and no output schema. It lacks details about return values, side effects, error handling, and the exact merge behavior, making it incomplete for an agent to understand full implications.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline for high-coverage cases.

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 ('Updates'), the resource ('an existing ConfigMap'), and the method ('by patching its data'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_configmap and get_configmap.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool over siblings or when not to use it. The description implies usage via the context of updating an existing ConfigMap, but lacks explicit context or alternatives.

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

Deploy Server