Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KubeCraft MCP Server

KubeCraft MCP Server

by cloudcrafttech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List Jobs

list_jobs

List Kubernetes jobs with completion status, duration, and succeeded/failed counts. Filter by namespace or view all.

Instructions

List Jobs with completion status, duration, and succeeded/failed counts. Omit namespace for all namespaces. Read-only.

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": "list_jobs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namespaceNoKubernetes namespace (omit for all namespaces)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which is critical since no annotations are provided. It also outlines output fields, giving good insight into the tool's behavior. However, it omits potential details like pagination or timeout limits.

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 short sentences totaling 17 words. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose, usage, and behavior with no redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional param, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, usage hint, read-only nature, and output fields. It is nearly complete; including an explicit mention of the return format (e.g., a list) would push it to a 5.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The single parameter (namespace) is already well-described in the input schema (100% coverage). The description adds marginal value by reiterating the behavior for omission, but does not provide additional semantic meaning beyond the schema.

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 tool lists Jobs and specifies the data it provides (completion status, duration, counts). It distinguishes from sibling list tools that focus on other resources (e.g., list_cronjobs) or higher-level abstractions.

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 provides a usage hint ('Omit namespace for all namespaces') but does not compare to or exclude sibling tools like list_cronjobs or other list operations. No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.

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