Skip to main content
Glama

list-limitranges

List Kubernetes limit ranges in a namespace to manage resource constraints and quotas for pods and containers.

Instructions

List Kubernetes limit ranges in a namespace

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function that implements the 'list-limitranges' tool. It constructs a kubectl command to list LimitRanges in the specified or default namespace and returns the formatted output.
    case "list-limitranges": {
      const { namespace } = args || {};
      const nsArg = namespace ? `-n ${namespace}` : "";
      const cmd = `kubectl get limitranges ${nsArg} -o wide`;
      const { stdout } = await execAsync(cmd);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: stdout || "No limit ranges found" }]
      };
    }
  • The schema definition and registration entry for the 'list-limitranges' tool in the tools array, which is returned by the ListTools handler. Defines the input schema with an optional namespace parameter.
    {
      name: "list-limitranges",
      description: "List Kubernetes limit ranges in a namespace",
      inputSchema: {
        type: "object",
        properties: {
          namespace: { 
            type: "string",
            description: "The namespace to list limit ranges from (optional, defaults to current context namespace)"
          }
        }
      }
    },
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action is a list operation, implying it's read-only and non-destructive, but doesn't confirm this or add context about permissions, rate limits, output format, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter) and high schema coverage, the description is minimally adequate. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it lacks behavioral context (e.g., read-only nature, permissions) and doesn't describe the return format. For a list operation, this leaves the agent uncertain about what to expect.

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 single parameter 'namespace' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as clarifying the 'current context namespace' default or namespace syntax. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does all the work.

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 action ('List') and resource ('Kubernetes limit ranges in a namespace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from similar list tools like list-configmaps or list-pods, which would require mentioning the specific resource type (limit ranges) as a distinguishing factor.

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 prerequisites (e.g., needing cluster access), compare it to sibling tools like list-all or list-resourcequotas, or indicate when limit ranges are relevant versus other resource types. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.

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