Skip to main content
Glama

k8s_uncordon_node

Re-enables pod scheduling on a Kubernetes node by marking it as schedulable after maintenance or issues.

Instructions

Mark a node as schedulable (uncordon) — re-enables pod scheduling

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesNode name

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that executes the node uncordon operation by patching the Kubernetes node object.
    export async function uncordonNode(args: Record<string, unknown>): Promise<string> {
      const api = getCoreV1Api();
      const name = args.name as string;
      if (!name) throw new Error("Node name is required");
    
      await api.patchNode(
        name,
        { spec: { unschedulable: false } },
        undefined,
        undefined,
        undefined,
        undefined,
        undefined,
        { headers: { "Content-Type": "application/strategic-merge-patch+json" } }
      );
    
      return `Node '${name}' uncordoned — scheduling is re-enabled.`;
    }
  • The MCP tool registration for 'k8s_uncordon_node', defining its schema and description.
    {
      name: "k8s_uncordon_node",
      description: "Mark a node as schedulable (uncordon) — re-enables pod scheduling",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object" as const,
        properties: {
          name: { type: "string", description: "Node name" },
        },
        required: ["name"],
      },
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It states the action but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like required permissions, whether this is a safe operation, potential side effects, or what happens if the node is already uncordoned. The description is minimal and lacks operational context.

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?

Extremely concise with just one sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word earns its place, and there's no redundant information or fluff.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but lacks details about behavioral implications, success/failure responses, or prerequisites. Given the complexity of Kubernetes operations, more context would be beneficial.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'name' (described as 'Node name'), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by implicitly confirming this parameter refers to the node being uncordoned, elevating the score slightly above baseline.

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 specific action ('Mark a node as schedulable (uncordon)') and resource ('node'), with the parenthetical clarifying the Kubernetes term. It distinguishes from its sibling 'k8s_cordon_node' by specifying the opposite operation.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implies usage context by stating it 're-enables pod scheduling,' suggesting it should be used after a node has been cordoned. However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or mention alternatives like 'k8s_cordon_node' by name.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/batu-sonmez/infraclaude'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server