KubeCraft MCP Server

List Resources (Generic)

list_resources

Fetch any Kubernetes resource by kind and API version, with optional namespace filtering.

Instructions

Generic resource lister — fetches any Kubernetes resource by kind and API version.

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": "list_resources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`kind`	Yes	Resource kind (e.g. 'CronJob', 'HorizontalPodAutoscaler')
`namespace`	No	Namespace (omit for cluster-scoped resources)
`api_version`	No	API version (default: 'v1', e.g. 'batch/v1', 'apps/v1')	v1

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'fetches,' indicating a read operation, but provides no details on potential side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or error handling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence that is front-loaded with the essential context 'Generic resource lister.' It is concise without wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative.

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 schema covers all parameters and there is no output schema, the description provides the minimal context needed to understand the tool's purpose. However, it lacks details on return values, scope (cluster vs. namespace), and edge cases, making it adequate but not comprehensive.

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 input schema has 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'kind' and 'API version' but adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, such as format or constraints for the parameters.

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 it is a 'Generic resource lister' and specifies the action: 'fetches any Kubernetes resource by kind and API version.' This distinguishes it from the many sibling tools that list specific resource types.

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 it should be used when a specific lister is not available, but it does not explicitly state when to use or not use this tool, nor does it mention alternatives. The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance.

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

Deploy Server