k8scortex-mcp

validate_workload_identity

Validate the identity chain from a ServiceAccount annotation to pods using that ServiceAccount, confirming proper workload identity configuration.

Instructions

Validates identity chain from ServiceAccount annotation to pods using that ServiceAccount.

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>",
      "serviceAccountName": "<serviceAccountName>"
    },
    "name": "validate_workload_identity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cluster`	No	Target cluster name (default: 'default')
`namespace`	Yes	ServiceAccount namespace
`serviceAccountName`	Yes	ServiceAccount name

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so description must disclose behavioral traits. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what outcomes (e.g., errors, success report) occur. Only describes the action without effects.

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?

Single sentence with no redundancy. However, it could be improved by structuring the validation steps or expected result.

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?

No output schema provided, yet description omits return value details. For a validation tool, the result format (success/failure, explanation) is critical but missing.

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?

All parameters are described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no extra meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly states it validates an identity chain from ServiceAccount annotation to pods, distinguishing it from generic listing or describing tools. However, it could be more specific about what 'validate' entails (e.g., checks annotation presence or consistency).

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 siblings like list_pods or get_workload_identity_config. No examples or prerequisites mentioned.

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

Deploy Server