Retrieve Kubernetes events filtered by type or reason to spot OOMKills, BackOffs, and troubleshoot namespace problems.
Get Kubernetes events filtered by type or reason — great for spotting OOMKills, BackOffs
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max events (default: 50) | |
| reason | No | Filter by reason e.g. "OOMKilling", "BackOff", "Failed" | |
| namespace | No | Namespace (default: "default") | |
| event_type | No | Filter by event type |
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 disclosure burden. 'Get' implies a read, but nothing states that events are namespaced-only (no cluster-wide option), whether there is a time window or sort order on results, or how large result sets behave beyond the limit param. For a zero-annotation tool this is thin.
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 sentence, zero waste, with the capability and the motivating use case front-loaded. It stops just short of being too terse to be actionable.
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?
All params are optional and fully documented in schema, and there is no output schema to explain. However, the description omits that results are scoped to a single namespace (defaulting to 'default'), which materially affects how an agent calls it across a cluster.
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 100%, and the description's mention of filtering by type or reason aligns with the event_type/reason params without adding format or interaction detail. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already documents all four parameters including defaults.
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: 'Get Kubernetes events' with the filtering dimension (type/reason) named inline. No sibling tool covers events, so differentiation is implicit but the scope is unmistakable.
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?
'Great for spotting OOMKills, BackOffs' implies a diagnostic use case, which gives the agent a hint about when this is the right call. But there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of how it relates to get_namespace_health or describe_pod for the same troubleshooting flow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.