list_backupsRetrieve Percona PG backup resources in a Kubernetes namespace, showing state, repository, and completion time for monitoring or auditing.
List PerconaPGBackup resources in a namespace, with their state, repo, and completion time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| context | No | kube-config context to target (defaults to current-context) | |
| namespace | No | Namespace (defaults to PERCONA_NAMESPACE if set) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.3Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds useful value by naming the returned fields (state, repo, completion time) with no output schema present, but says nothing about pagination or filtering behavior.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the scope and returned fields come before any secondary detail. Appropriately sized for a simple list tool, though slightly terse.
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 simple read-only list with full schema coverage, complete annotations and no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it names the resource and the fields returned. Minor gaps remain around defaults behavior, which the schema already covers.
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 both 'context' and 'namespace' are fully documented in the schema. The description only obliquely references the namespace scoping and adds no format or default-syntax detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('PerconaPGBackup resources') scoped to a namespace, and names the fields surfaced. An agent can tell it apart from list_restores and list_clusters by the resource type, though no sibling is explicitly referenced.
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 only states what the tool does; it never says when to reach for it versus sibling tools like list_restores or get_cluster_status, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is left entirely to inference from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.