KubeCraft MCP Server

Detect Service Mesh

detect_service_mesh

Detect installed service meshes in your Kubernetes cluster by API groups, and view namespace injection labels and sidecar container counts for Istio and Linkerd from a pod sample.

Instructions

Detect installed service meshes (Istio, Linkerd, Cilium, Contour, Kuma, Consul Connect) by API groups. For Istio/Linkerd: shows namespace injection labels and sidecar container counts from a pod sample.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "detect_service_mesh"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It states detection by API groups and extra details for two meshes, but omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what the output format is. This leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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?

The description is extremely concise with two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every sentence provides essential information—listing meshes and specifying additional output for two cases. 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?

Given the simple nature of the tool (zero parameters, no output schema), the description is moderately complete. It explains detection method and partial output details, but lacks a description of the return format and does not cover all supported meshes equally. A bit more context on output would improve completeness.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by listing supported meshes and indicating added details for Istio/Linkerd, which compensates for the lack of parameter explanations.

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 verb 'Detect' and resource 'installed service meshes', listing specific supported meshes like Istio, Linkerd, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling detect tools (e.g., detect_cni) by targeting a different resource domain.

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?

The description implies usage when needing to check for service meshes, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites. The context of sibling detect tools helps, but explicit guidance is missing.

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

Deploy Server