Skip to main content
Glama

list-rolebindings

View Kubernetes role bindings to manage access permissions in a specific namespace, helping administrators audit and control cluster security.

Instructions

List Kubernetes role bindings in a namespace

Input Schema

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

Implementation Reference

  • Handler implementation for the 'list-rolebindings' tool. Executes 'kubectl get rolebindings -o wide' with optional namespace flag and returns the stdout as text content.
    case "list-rolebindings": {
      const { namespace } = args || {};
      const nsArg = namespace ? `-n ${namespace}` : "";
      const cmd = `kubectl get rolebindings ${nsArg} -o wide`;
      const { stdout } = await execAsync(cmd);
      return {
        content: [{ type: "text", text: stdout || "No role bindings found" }]
      };
    }
  • Schema definition for the 'list-rolebindings' tool, including input schema for optional namespace parameter. This is part of the tools array used for tool listing and validation.
    name: "list-rolebindings",
    description: "List Kubernetes role bindings in a namespace",
    inputSchema: {
      type: "object",
      properties: {
        namespace: { 
          type: "string",
          description: "The namespace to list role bindings from (optional, defaults to current context namespace)"
        }
      }
    }
  • server.js:1392-1394 (registration)
    Registration of the tools list handler, which returns the array containing the 'list-rolebindings' tool schema when ListToolsRequest is called.
    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 full burden. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it requires specific permissions, returns paginated results, includes default namespaces, or handles errors. 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 front-loads the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 but lacks output details (no output schema) and behavioral context. It covers the basic what but not the how or when, making it incomplete for optimal agent use without additional inference.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'namespace' fully documented in the schema as optional and defaulting to current context. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying namespace scope, which is already covered. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 role bindings') with scope ('in a namespace'), making the purpose immediately understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list-clusterrolebindings' or 'list-roles', which would require mentioning it's namespace-scoped versus cluster-scoped or distinguishing role bindings from roles.

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 like 'list-clusterrolebindings' or 'list-roles', nor does it mention prerequisites such as needing proper Kubernetes context or permissions. It lacks explicit when/when-not instructions or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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