Discover externally reachable Kubernetes resources: LoadBalancer and NodePort services, Ingress routes, hostNetwork pods, and exposed management paths in a given namespace.
What is reachable from outside: LoadBalancer/NodePort Services, Ingress routes (TLS or not), hostNetwork pods, management paths exposed.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No | Kubernetes namespace (required: no default configured; see list_namespaces) |
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 burden. It discloses the scope of the result by listing what is included, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only, whether namespace is effectively required, or any caveats about visibility limits. The get prefix and category list add some transparency but leave room for assumptions.
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?
A single, densely informative fragment: the leading phrase 'What is reachable from outside' immediately frames the tool, and each listed item contributes distinct scope with no filler or 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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys the main output categories well. However, it does not explain the role of namespace, behavior when namespace is omitted, or output format, leaving an agent to infer those details from the schema and context.
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%; the namespace parameter is already described in the input schema as a Kubernetes namespace with no default configured. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 clearly states the tool surfaces externally reachable resources and enumerates specific categories: LoadBalancer/NodePort Services, Ingress routes, hostNetwork pods, and management paths. This distinguishes it from siblings like get_ingress_routes or get_network_policies by focusing on external exposure rather than individual resource types.
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 implied: use when you need to know what is reachable from outside the cluster. However, there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are mentioned despite close siblings such as get_ingress_routes, get_network_policies, and security_posture.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.