Identify which Kubernetes Secrets are referenced by workloads, and whether they are used as environment variables or volume mounts, without exposing values.
Which Secrets are referenced by which workloads and how (env vs volume). Names/keys only, never values.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose a key behavioral trait: it never returns secret values, only names/keys. That is valuable for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe for a given task. It does not mention output shape, pagination, or permissions, but the no-values guarantee is the most important behavior here.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler; the core question is front-loaded and the values caveat follows immediately. Every phrase contributes to the agent's decision.
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 read-only lookup, the description covers purpose, output scope, and the key constraint. It does not define the exact return structure, but the description's 'names/keys only' plus the simple namespace parameter make that omission minor. It is largely complete for the tool's complexity.
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 coverage is 100%, and the one parameter (namespace) is described in the schema as required with no default and pointing to list_namespaces. The description does not independently add parameter semantics, but none are needed given the schema coverage. The baseline 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 identifies the tool's function: mapping Secrets to workloads and distinguishing env vs volume usage. It also clarifies output scope (names/keys, not values), which helps distinguish it from secret-value retrieval. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'list' or 'show', so it is clear but not maximally specific.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool over siblings such as get_rbac_for_workload or scan_logs_for_sensitive_data. The only usage hint is the namespace prerequisite ('see list_namespaces'), which is parameter-level rather than tool-selection guidance. This leaves the agent to infer the appropriate call context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.