Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KubeCraft MCP Server

KubeCraft MCP Server

by cloudcrafttech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Describe Resource

describe_resource

Get the complete specification of a Kubernetes resource in YAML or JSON format by specifying its kind and name.

Instructions

Return the full spec of a Kubernetes resource as YAML or JSON. Supported kinds: pod, service, deployment, replicaset, statefulset, daemonset, configmap, secret, ingress, namespace, node, persistentvolumeclaim.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "describe_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesResource kind (e.g. 'pod', 'deployment')
nameYesResource name
outputNoOutput format (default: yaml)yaml
namespaceNoNamespace (not needed for cluster-scoped resources)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States it returns full spec as YAML/JSON and lists supported kinds, but omits error handling (e.g., resource not found), permissions, namespace behavior for cluster-scoped vs namespaced resources, and output format default. Partial disclosure.

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?

Single sentence with a list. Front-loaded main action. No wasted words.

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?

Adequately covers purpose and supported kinds. Lacks return format details, namespace scoping clarification, and error behavior. Given moderate complexity and no output schema, more detail would help.

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage, baseline 3. Description adds value with an exhaustive list of supported kinds, helping the agent select valid values for 'kind'. Slightly beyond the example in schema description.

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?

Clear verb 'Return' and resource 'full spec of a Kubernetes resource'. Lists 15 supported kinds explicitly, distinguishing it from sibling tools that list resources (e.g., list_pods) by focusing on a single resource's complete spec.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage: use when you need the full spec of a specific resource. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use vs alternatives like get_cluster_info or list_resources.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools