Fetch non-sensitive cluster metadata (deploydata.json, metadata.json, console/API URLs) from a deploy job's data zip, never exposing kubeconfig or admin password.
Return non-sensitive cluster metadata from a deploy job *-data.zip (deploydata.json, metadata.json, console/API URLs). Does not read kubeconfig or kubeadmin-password.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_name | Yes | ||
| build_number | No | ||
| cluster_name | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds meaningful behavioral context by stating the result is non-sensitive and that it does not read kubeconfig or kubeadmin-password. It does not mention output format, error cases, or authentication requirements, but the safety disclosure is valuable for an info-getter.
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?
Two tightly written sentences with no filler. The core purpose and source are front-loaded, and the exclusion of kubeconfig material is stated immediately after the main behavior.
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?
The description covers what the tool returns and what it avoids, but with no output schema and no annotation support, it leaves gaps around parameter roles, how the deploy job is selected, and what happens when the specified job does not exist or lacks the expected zip files.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but it does not explain job_name, build_number, or cluster_name beyond implying a deploy job context. The parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no meaning about how the parameters identify the deploy job or whether the optional fields are filters.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Return non-sensitive cluster metadata from a deploy job *-data.zip' and names concrete contents (deploydata.json, metadata.json, console/API URLs). It also explicitly distinguishes itself from kubeconfig retrieval, which differentiates it from the sibling get_cluster_kubeconfig.
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 makes clear this is the safe, non-sensitive metadata access path and explicitly states it does not read kubeconfig or kubeadmin-password, which implies using a sibling tool when credentials are needed. It stops short of naming the exact alternative or giving explicit when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.