list_api_resourcesDiscover which Kubernetes resource kinds and custom resource definitions the cluster exposes for listing, with blocked kinds omitted during read-only exploration.
Discover which resource kinds (including CRDs) the cluster exposes and can be listed. Read-only discovery; blocked kinds are omitted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark it readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive; the description adds value by noting results are limited to kinds that 'can be listed', that CRDs are included, and that 'blocked kinds are omitted.' This provides behavioral filtering context beyond the annotations.
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 front-load the action and scope. 'Read-only discovery; blocked kinds are omitted' adds safety and filtering context in six words, with no filler.
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 no-argument, read-only discovery tool with no output schema, the description conveys what the result contains (listable resource kinds, including CRDs) and its filtering behavior. An agent selecting or invoking this tool is not missing critical information.
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?
The schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description correctly implies this is a parameterless discovery call without adding unnecessary detail.
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 opens with a specific verb, 'Discover', and names the resource: 'resource kinds (including CRDs) the cluster exposes and can be listed.' This clearly scopes it to capability discovery rather than instance listing, distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_pods and list_deployments.
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?
The phrase 'Discover which resource kinds...' identifies the tool for discovery use, and 'Read-only discovery' signals it is an exploratory step. However, it does not explicitly name when to prefer it over list_resource or state exclusions, so the guidance is clear but not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.