list_eventsRetrieve recent events in a namespace to diagnose why a resource fails to schedule or start.
List recent events in a namespace — the fastest way to see why something is failing to schedule/start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max events (capped by OPENSHIFT_MAX_RESULTS) | |
| namespace | Yes | Namespace / project |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about recency and diagnostic purpose, but does not disclose ordering, pagination, or event-level behavior. No contradiction exists.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One sentence with no filler: it opens with the action and resource, then immediately supplies the practical value. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a low-complexity read-only list tool with fully documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is sufficient for correct invocation. It does not specify output formatting or event ordering, but the return shape is reasonably inferable from the tool's name and purpose.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the namespace and limit parameters are already fully documented. The description reinforces the namespace scope and recency but does not need to repeat parameter details, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List recent events in a namespace,' and adds a clear diagnostic rationale. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_resources and get_resource by focusing on events and scheduling/start failures.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies when to use the tool: when you need to see why something is failing to schedule or start. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.