k8s-pilot
Related Servers
Alternatives to k8s-pilot
No user-submitted related servers found.
Related Servers
- FlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceAn MCP server that enables interaction with multiple Kubernetes clusters simultaneously, providing comprehensive tools for cluster management, resource operations, and diagnostics across different environments.-
- FlicenseBqualityFmaintenanceA gateway for Generative AI systems to interact with multiple Kubernetes clusters through Model Context Protocol, enabling comprehensive Kubernetes resource operations and multi-cluster management.4354-
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that enables AI assistants to interact with Kubernetes clusters through natural language, supporting core Kubernetes operations, monitoring, security, and diagnostics.108956MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityCmaintenanceA Model Context Protocol server that lets AI assistants query multiple Kubernetes clusters simultaneously using natural language.3MIT
- AlicenseCqualityBmaintenanceAn MCP server that provides complete Kubernetes API operations, enabling cluster management, resource CRUD, diagnostics, backup/restore, and multi-cluster configuration via natural language.322MIT
- AlicenseNot gradedqualityDmaintenanceA lightweight MCP server that enables natural language interaction with Kubernetes clusters, allowing management of pods, deployments, namespaces, and cluster resources through conversational queries or API endpoints.1MIT
TDQS
Scored across 57 tools
Each tool targets a distinct Kubernetes resource or operation (e.g., clusterrole_create vs clusterrole_delete, pod_logs vs pod_detail). There is no ambiguity between tools as they clearly differentiate by resource and action.
Tool names mix styles: some use verb_noun (e.g., create_namespace), others use noun_verb (e.g., configmap_create). Additionally, there are inconsistencies like plural vs singular (list_namespaces vs clusterrole_list). This makes naming unpredictable.
57 tools is high for a Kubernetes MCP server. While the scope is broad, many tools are redundant or could be combined (e.g., separate add/remove label tools for namespaces and nodes). The count exceeds typical ranges, but it is still manageable.
The server covers various resources but has notable gaps: missing deployment_create and deployment_get, no pod creation, no support for common resources like HPA, NetworkPolicy, or RBAC bindings. This limits its ability to perform complete workflows.