Retrieve Vertical Pod Autoscaler recommendations per container, including lowerBound, target, upperBound, and uncappedTarget, by providing name, cluster, and namespace.
Show VPA recommendations per container: lowerBound/target/upperBound/uncappedTarget.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| cluster | No | ||
| namespace | No | default |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. 'Show' implies a read-only operation and the field list discloses what the agent can expect in the result. However, it does not address auth requirements or any other behavioral traits, leaving the disclosure minimal.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Every element ('per container', the four field names) adds meaningful information, which is exactly what conciseness should look like.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values are already covered and need no description. The main gaps are the ambiguous 'name' parameter and the absence of any pointer distinguishing this from list_vpas. Adequate for a simple read tool, but with clear holes.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain name, cluster, or namespace at all. 'name' is ambiguous — it could mean the VPA name or container name — and given the tool returns 'per container' results, this ambiguity is material.
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 uses a specific verb ('Show') and resource ('VPA recommendations per container') and names the four output fields, making the tool's function immediately obvious. It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling list_vpas, though it never names that alternative explicitly.
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 is given on when to call this tool versus list_vpas or other autoscaling tools. With a sibling named list_vpas present, the description leaves the selection decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.