Skip to main content
Glama

list-configmaps

Retrieve Kubernetes ConfigMaps from a specified namespace to manage application configuration data and secrets within your cluster.

Instructions

List Kubernetes configmaps in a namespace

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
namespaceNoThe namespace to list configmaps from (optional, defaults to current context namespace)

Implementation Reference

  • The core handler logic for the 'list-configmaps' tool. It extracts the optional namespace from arguments, constructs a 'kubectl get configmaps' command, executes it via execAsync, and returns the stdout as text content.
    case "list-configmaps": {
      const { namespace } = args || {};
      const nsArg = namespace ? `-n ${namespace}` : "";
      const cmd = `kubectl get configmaps ${nsArg} -o wide`;
      const { stdout } = await execAsync(cmd);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: stdout || "No configmaps found" }]
      };
    }
  • The input schema definition for the 'list-configmaps' tool, defining the optional 'namespace' parameter.
      name: "list-configmaps",
      description: "List Kubernetes configmaps in a namespace",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          namespace: { 
            type: "string",
            description: "The namespace to list configmaps from (optional, defaults to current context namespace)"
          }
        }
      }
    },
  • server.js:1392-1394 (registration)
    The handler for ListToolsRequestSchema that returns the static 'tools' array containing the registration of 'list-configmaps' among other tools.
    server.setRequestHandler(ListToolsRequestSchema, async () => {
      return { tools };
    });
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('List') but doesn't describe key behaviors: whether this is a read-only operation, what the output format looks like (e.g., list of names or full details), if it requires specific permissions, or if there are rate limits. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by specifying the tool's function efficiently.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Given the complexity of Kubernetes operations and the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like output format, error conditions, or permissions needed, which are critical for an AI agent to use the tool correctly. While the purpose is clear, the overall context for safe and effective usage is insufficient.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the 'namespace' parameter fully documented in the schema itself (optional, defaults to current context namespace). The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('Kubernetes configmaps in a namespace'), making the tool's purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get-configmap' (which retrieves a single configmap) and 'describe-configmap' (which provides detailed information), though it doesn't explicitly mention these distinctions. The specificity is good but could be slightly enhanced with sibling differentiation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention siblings like 'list-all' (which might list all resources across namespaces) or 'get-configmap' (for retrieving a specific configmap), nor does it specify prerequisites such as needing Kubernetes cluster access or appropriate permissions. Usage is implied by the name but not explicitly stated.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/thekaranpargaie/kube-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server