MCP Server Kubernetes

kubectl_scale

Destructive

Scales a Kubernetes deployment by changing the number of replicas to a specified count. Supports deployments, replicasets, and statefulsets across namespaces.

Instructions

Scale a Kubernetes deployment

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>",
      "replicas": "<replicas>"
    },
    "name": "kubectl_scale"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name of the deployment to scale
`namespace`	No	Kubernetes namespace	default
`replicas`	Yes	Number of replicas to scale to
`resourceType`	No	Resource type to scale (deployment, replicaset, statefulset)	deployment
`context`	No	Kubeconfig Context to use for the command (optional - defaults to null)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.9.1Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The annotation 'destructiveHint: true' already indicates state modification. The description adds no further behavioral context, such as that scaling triggers pod creation/termination, or whether the operation is immediate and idempotent. Given the annotation presence, a score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not contradict but adds little value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise at one sentence. While it is front-loaded, it may be insufficient for a tool with 5 parameters and potential variations. A slightly longer description with key details would improve usability without losing conciseness.

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?

The tool performs a simple mutation, but the description lacks mention that it can scale resources other than deployments (e.g., replicasets, statefulsets). No output schema exists, but for a scaling operation, the return value is often the updated resource or status; the description could hint at that. Overall, it meets minimum viability but has gaps.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any meaning beyond the parameter descriptions in the schema. It provides no examples, constraints, or relationships between parameters.

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 action 'Scale' and resource 'Kubernetes deployment'. However, it omits that the tool can also scale other resource types (replicaset, statefulset) as indicated by the 'resourceType' parameter. Among siblings like kubectl_apply and kubectl_patch, it could be more distinctive.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., kubectl_apply for broader changes). No prerequisites or conditions are mentioned, such as requiring the target resource to exist. The description does not help the agent decide between scaling and other operations.

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