Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KubeCraft MCP Server

KubeCraft MCP Server

by cloudcrafttech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

List OpenShift BuildConfigs

openshift_list_builds

List OpenShift BuildConfigs across namespaces, showing build strategy, source type, git URI, and build count. Returns a notice if not on OpenShift.

Instructions

List OpenShift BuildConfigs with build strategy, source type, git URI, and build count. Returns a compatibility notice on non-OpenShift clusters.

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": "openshift_list_builds"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namespaceNoNamespace (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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns a compatibility notice on non-OpenShift clusters, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, or any rate limits, leaving some 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 two sentences with no superfluous content, front-loading the core functionality and a key behavior note. Every sentence adds value.

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?

For a simple list tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential information: what is listed (fields), and a notable behavior (compat notice). Minor details like sort order or output format are omitted, but overall adequate.

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 for the single 'namespace' parameter, so the description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema. The 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 states the tool lists OpenShift BuildConfigs with specific fields (build strategy, source type, git URI, build count), providing a specific verb and resource that distinguishes it from sibling tools like openshift_list_projects.

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 for listing OpenShift BuildConfigs, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions. It mentions a compatibility notice on non-OpenShift clusters, giving some context, 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

Other Tools