mcp-kubernetes

Get pod

get_pod

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a pod's full details by name and namespace, enabling inspection of its configuration and status.

Instructions

Fetch the full representation of a single pod.

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "namespace": "<namespace>"
    },
    "name": "get_pod"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Pod name
`context`	No	kube-config context to target (defaults to current-context)
`namespace`	Yes	Namespace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.2.1Sep 9, 2026
- removedInput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```
First observedv0.1.0Aug 23, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat these. The added value is the word 'full', implying comprehensive details, but it doesn't disclose response size, pagination, or error behavior. Given annotations cover safety, a 3 is appropriate.

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, concise sentence that is front-loaded with the core action. It is efficient with no wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

For a read-only fetch tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not mention the response structure, error cases, or how it differs from list/get_resource, leaving some ambiguity given the wide sibling set.

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%: all three parameters have descriptions ('Pod name', 'Namespace', 'kube-config context...'). The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is correct.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Fetch' and the resource 'full representation of a single pod', which is specific. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_pods' or 'get_resource', though the name itself makes the primary purpose clear.

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 retrieving a single pod's details, but does not explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'get_resource' or 'list_pods'. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer based on the name and context.

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

Deploy Server