KubeCraft MCP Server

Render App Architecture (PNG)

render_app_architecture

Produce a PNG image of KubeOrch-style Kubernetes app architecture, displaying components from Ingress to PVCs.

Instructions

Render the full KubeOrch-style app architecture as a PNG image. Shows Ingress → Service → Deployment → Pod plus ConfigMaps, Secrets, PVCs.

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": "render_app_architecture"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`namespace`	No	Namespace to render (default: 'default')	default

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It states the tool generates a PNG image but does not disclose potential side effects (though likely none), performance characteristics, or output details beyond the image format. A read-only rendering is implied, but not explicitly stated.

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?

Two sentences with no redundant information. The first sentence states the action and output type; the second enumerates key components. Extremely concise and front-loaded.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter, no output schema), the description adequately covers the tool's behavior and output. It specifies what is rendered and in what format, though it could mention that the tool is read-only or non-destructive.

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% (1 parameter 'namespace' already described with default and description). The tool description adds no additional meaning or context for this parameter 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 renders a KubeOrch-style app architecture as a PNG image, listing specific components (Ingress, Service, Deployment, Pod, ConfigMaps, Secrets, PVCs). This uniquely identifies its purpose among sibling tools like render_cluster_topology or render_namespace.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like render_cluster_topology or visualize_app_architecture. There is no mention of prerequisites, suitable scenarios, 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