List ArgoCD applications on OpenShift with sync/health status, repo, revision, destination, and age. Filter by cluster and namespace to monitor GitOps deployments.
List ArgoCD Applications with sync/health status, repo, revision, destination, and age.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| cluster | No | ||
| namespace | No | openshift-gitops |
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys a read-only listing and names the status fields, but it does not disclose behavior around the cluster/namespace parameters, ordering, pagination, or whether statuses are current or cached. Minimal behavioral context is added beyond the verb 'List'.
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?
The description is a single sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb and resource. Every word earns its place, and the structure is immediately scannable.
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 and this is a low-complexity list operation, but the description still omits the meaning of the cluster and namespace parameters and provides no usage context relative to closely related GitOps tools. The cluster parameter is especially ambiguous, and the lack of sibling routing makes the description incomplete for confident tool selection.
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%, and the description makes no mention of the cluster or namespace parameters or their defaults (e.g., openshift-gitops). The agent gets no help understanding what 'cluster' means or how 'namespace' filters results. The description does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions at all.
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 ('List'), identifies the resource ('ArgoCD Applications'), and enumerates the returned fields (sync/health status, repo, revision, destination, age). It is clear, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_gitops_application or get_gitops_application_health; the plural 'List' and summary-field emphasis imply the distinction.
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 use this tool versus alternatives such as get_gitops_application for a single app, get_gitops_application_health for health details, or sync/refresh operations. The 'List' verb implies batch viewing, but the description never states conditions, exclusions, or the intended selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.