Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
KubeCraft MCP Server

KubeCraft MCP Server

by cloudcrafttech
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Summarize NetworkPolicies

summarize_network_policies

Summarize Kubernetes network policies with pod selectors, ingress/egress rule counts, and flag potential default-deny ingress configurations.

Instructions

List NetworkPolicies with pod selector summary, ingress/egress rule counts, and a possible default-deny ingress heuristic. 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": "summarize_network_policies"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namespaceNoKubernetes namespace (omit for all namespaces)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It declares read-only behavior and mentions a heuristic for default-deny ingress. However, it does not discuss permissions, rate limits, or any side effects, which would elevate it further.

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 main action and output. Every word adds value; no redundancy or filler.

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 has one optional parameter and no output schema, the description adequately covers purpose, parameter usage, and output structure. It could mention if there are any limitations (e.g., only lists from current context) but is largely complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% for the single parameter. The description adds value by explaining the summary content (pod selector, rule counts, heuristic) beyond the schema's namespace description. This compensates for not detailing parameter format or constraints.

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 lists NetworkPolicies with pod selector summary, ingress/egress rule counts, and a default-deny heuristic. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list_resources' and 'render_network' by specifying the resource type and summary content.

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 gives guidance on the optional namespace parameter ('Omit namespace for all namespaces'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over sibling tools such as 'render_network' or 'list_resources'. The usage context is implied but not fully explicit.

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