mcp-kubernetes

List events

list_events

Read-onlyIdempotent

List recent Kubernetes events in a specified namespace to diagnose failures and identify root causes.

Instructions

List recent events in a namespace — useful for diagnosing failures.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`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

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description carries less burden. It adds the notion of 'recent' events, implying a time window, but does not elaborate on ordering, limits, or what exactly constitutes 'recent.' No contradictions.

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?

One sentence, no redundancy, the core purpose and usage hint are front-loaded. Every word earns its place.

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 read-only list tool, the description is sufficient. It identifies the action, resource, and scope, and the annotations cover safety. It lacks details about response format or limits, but given no output schema and simplicity, it is reasonably complete.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the schema (100% coverage), so the description adds no additional meaning. It does not explain the context parameter's default behavior beyond what schema says, so baseline 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?

Clear verb and resource ('List events within a namespace'), with an explicit purpose ('diagnosing failures'). It is distinct from sibling list tools like list_pods, list_services, etc., because it specifically targets events.

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 notes the tool is 'useful for diagnosing failures,' giving a context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or point to alternatives, so it is slightly above baseline 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