Identify Kubernetes workloads in any namespace, showing ready counts, restarts, images, and age. Use it to discover what runs where and assess their health.
Deployments/StatefulSets/DaemonSets/Jobs/CronJobs in a namespace with ready counts, restarts, images, and age. Start here when you do not know what runs where.
| 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 of explaining behavior. It discloses the scope and returned fields, but does not explicitly state read-only behavior or how results are aggregated across workload types. This is adequate but not fully transparent.
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 concise sentences deliver the resource scope, returned data, and usage guidance with no filler. The key information is front-loaded and every word earns its place.
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 one-parameter listing tool with no output schema, the description covers what it returns and when to use it. It does not describe sorting, limits, or empty-state behavior, but these are not critical for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.
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%, with the single namespace parameter already documented. The description adds only the context that workloads are listed 'in a namespace,' which does not materially expand on the schema's explanation.
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 names a specific set of Kubernetes workload resources and the exact fields returned (ready counts, restarts, images, age). It clearly distinguishes itself as the workload inventory tool, especially with the 'Start here when you do not know what runs where' framing.
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?
It explicitly says to use this tool as the starting point when the user is unsure what workloads exist. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the usage context is clear enough to route an agent appropriately.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.