Check control-plane certificate expiry for a vcluster to diagnose opaque connection failures when the cluster appears healthy but is unreachable.
Report control-plane certificates and expiry for a vcluster.
Read-only. Worth checking when a vcluster looks healthy but is unreachable, since expired certs surface as opaque connection failures.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| namespace | No | ||
| kubeconfig_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "anyOf": [
- {
- "additionalProperties": true,
- "type": "object"
- },
- {
- "items": {},
- "type": "array"
- },
- {
- "type": "string"
- }
- ],
- "title": "Result"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "title": "vcluster_certs_checkOutput",
- "type": "object"
-}New value: +nullv0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only', which is important safety information, but it does not disclose auth requirements, side-effect confirmation beyond read-only, or what the returned report contains.
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?
The description is two short sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the follow-up sentence provides actionable context without redundancy.
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 diagnostic tool, the description covers the key use case and safety trait. However, with no output schema and no annotation support, it omits return-value expectations and parameter semantics, leaving a moderate completeness gap.
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%, yet the description adds no direct meaning to the three parameters. The property titles (Name, Namespace, Kubeconfig Path) are self-evident, but the description never explains which parameters are needed or how they interact.
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 states a specific action ('Report') and a specific resource ('control-plane certificates and expiry for a vcluster'). It is distinct enough from siblings like vcluster_describe or vcluster_kubeconfig, though it does not explicitly contrast them.
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 gives a concrete trigger scenario: use it when a vcluster appears healthy but is unreachable, because expired certs produce opaque connection failures. It provides clear context but does not mention alternatives or explicit when-not-to-use conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.