MCP Server Kubernetes

list_api_resources

Read-only

List all API resources in a Kubernetes cluster, with optional filters by API group, namespace, or verbs. Choose output format for detailed or summarized view.

Instructions

List the API resources available in the cluster

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_api_resources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`apiGroup`	No	API group to filter by
`namespaced`	No	If true, only show namespaced resources
`context`	No	Kubeconfig Context to use for the command (optional - defaults to null)
`verbs`	No	List of verbs to filter by
`output`	No	Output format (wide, name, or no-headers)	wide

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.9.1Jun 18, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a read-only operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond stating the action 'List'. No details on scope, safety, or response characteristics are provided.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no superfluous words. However, it is overly brief given the complexity of the tool and its parameters, but this is not penalized heavily under conciseness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite 5 parameters and many sibling tools, the description lacks critical context such as what the output looks like (no output schema) and when to use this tool. The description is insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

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 description does not add any extra meaning beyond what the schema already explains for each parameter.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'List the API resources available in the cluster' clearly states the verb and resource, but it does not distinguish this tool from siblings like kubectl_get or explain_resource, which also list API resources. The term 'API resources' is ambiguous; it could mean resource types or instances.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kubectl_get or kubectl_describe. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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