List RoleBindings in a namespace to display role references and bound subjects, clarifying assigned permissions for users, groups, or service accounts.
List RoleBindings in a namespace with role reference and bound subjects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'List' makes the read-only nature clear and the description names the returned content, but it does not mention permissions, cluster-context behavior, or pagination. This is adequate for a simple list operation but not especially rich.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb, resource, and scope with no filler or repetition. Every word earns its place.
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?
For a two-parameter list tool with an output schema, the core listing behavior and output content are covered. However, the 'cluster' parameter is not documented in the description or schema, and there is no explicit differentiation from list_cluster_role_bindings. It is minimally viable but has clear gaps.
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 for missing parameter documentation. It adds meaning to 'namespace' via 'in a namespace', but the 'cluster' parameter is entirely unexplained, including its default value. With two parameters and one undocumented, the coverage is incomplete.
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?
Uses a specific verb ('List'), names the exact resource (RoleBindings), and scopes it to a namespace. Also previews the returned fields ('role reference and bound subjects'), which distinguishes it from the cluster-scoped sibling list_cluster_role_bindings.
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?
The namespaced phrasing implies when the tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit mention of alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions. An agent must infer the contrast with list_cluster_role_bindings from sibling names rather than from guidance in the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.