k8s-cronjob-mcp

find_silent_failures

Scan Kubernetes CronJobs for missing successful runs over a set period, even when no errors appear, and return silent failures needing attention.

Instructions

Scan CronJobs (one namespace or all) for ones with no successful run in the last N days, even if nothing is erroring right now. Returns the CronJobs needing attention, most urgent first, with the pattern (failing, stalled, never-succeeded), time since last success and last failure. Also catches CronJobs that stopped firing after a recent success, reports CronJobs whose runs outlast their schedule interval as degraded, and flags at-risk ones whose runs use more than 80% of it. Suspended CronJobs are listed briefly. Every result says what time window and runs it is based on.

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": "find_silent_failures"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Flag CronJobs with no success in this many days
`limit`	No	Max findings to return
`namespace`	No	Namespace to scan; omit for all namespaces
`include_suspended`	No	Return suspended CronJobs as full findings instead of a short list

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it discloses result ordering (most urgent first), the classification taxonomy (failing, stalled, never-succeeded), extra behaviors not obvious from the name (stopped-after-success detection, degraded = runtime exceeds interval, at-risk = >80% of interval), how suspended CronJobs are handled, and that each finding states its basis window. This is behavior an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

Purpose and the key differentiating condition are front-loaded in the first sentence, and subsequent sentences each add a distinct capability rather than restating. It is dense but slightly long, and the closing sentence about window provenance is meta rather than actionable.

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

Completeness4/5

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

There is no output schema and no annotations, yet the description explains what is returned, in what order, with what labels and evidence fields. It never explicitly states the tool is read-only or says anything about errors or truncation via limit, which are the remaining small gaps for a four-parameter diagnostic tool.

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 coverage is 100% and all four parameters are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the meaning of the days window and namespace scoping and implies suspended handling, but adds no format or syntax detail beyond what the schema states, and never mentions limit.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Names a specific verb and resource (scan CronJobs for no recent success) and immediately pins the differentiating angle: 'even if nothing is erroring right now.' That scope statement cleanly separates it from siblings like list_recent_failures and get_cronjob_status, which surface already-visible errors or a single CronJob's state.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The phrase 'even if nothing is erroring right now' strongly signals the use case (proactive health sweeps vs reactive error inspection), and 'one namespace or all' hints at scoping choice. It stops short of naming an alternative sibling or stating exclusions (e.g., 'for a specific known failure use get_failure_details'), so it is clear context without explicit routing.

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

Deploy Server