KubeCraft MCP Server

List StatefulSets

list_statefulsets

List Kubernetes StatefulSets in a namespace or all namespaces, displaying ready, updated, and current pod counts, update strategy, and headless service name.

Instructions

List StatefulSets with ready/updated/current counts, update strategy, and headless service name. 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_statefulsets"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`namespace`	No	Kubernetes namespace (omit for all namespaces)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It states the tool is read-only and lists what it returns. However, it lacks details on authorization requirements, default behavior (e.g., default namespace if omitted), or potential limits (e.g., pagination). This is adequate but not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the tool's purpose and output, followed by a usage hint. Every word is necessary, with no redundancy or fluff.

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 parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential purpose, output details, and namespace behavior. It misses only minor context like default behavior or error scenarios, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the schema already documenting the namespace parameter and its optionality. The description merely repeats 'Omit namespace for all namespaces,' adding no new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies the verb 'List' and the resource 'StatefulSets', and lists the returned information (ready/updated/current counts, update strategy, headless service name). It also explains the behavior of omitting namespace, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_deployments or list_pods.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides a clear usage guideline: 'Omit namespace for all namespaces.' It also marks the tool as 'Read-only,' implying safe use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server