Retrieve Kubernetes nodes with roles, conditions, capacity, and running pod counts, filtered by agent or cluster, to monitor health and capacity.
List Kubernetes nodes with their roles, conditions, capacity and running pod counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agent_id | No | Filter by agent/cluster UUID, or 'local'. Omit for all. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safety profile, so the description's added value is the disclosure of result contents (roles, conditions, capacity, pod counts), which matters because no output schema exists. It does not mention whether results are live or cached, or whether large clusters are truncated.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and the returned fields are stated immediately and nothing is redundant.
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 tool with a fully documented single optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose and result shape adequately. Minor gaps remain on scope (cluster-wide vs filtered) and result-size behavior, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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?
The single agent_id parameter is fully documented in the schema, including the 'local' value and the omit-for-all behavior, so the description needs to add little. It adds nothing beyond the schema baseline, which is acceptable at 100% coverage.
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?
Specific verb+resource ('List Kubernetes nodes') plus the fields returned (roles, conditions, capacity, pod counts). The resource noun alone separates it from list_kubernetes_pods, list_kubernetes_workloads, and list_swarm_nodes, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied by the resource name — an agent can infer this is the right call when node-level data is needed. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to alternatives such as list_kubernetes_pods for pod-level detail.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.