list_namespacesList all Kubernetes namespaces that pass the namespace allowlist, providing a read-only view of available cluster namespaces for inspection.
List all namespaces in the cluster (filtered by the namespace allowlist)
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the allowlist filtering behavior, which is not present in the annotations. No return-format detail is given, but for a parameterless read-only list operation this is a minor gap.
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?
The description is a single efficient sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then adds the only relevant qualifier. There is no redundant wording or repetition of the title.
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 parameterless, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description is complete. It states what is listed, the cluster scope, and the allowlist filter. Nothing else is needed for an agent to invoke the 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?
The tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty with 100% schema description coverage. Per the rubric, a baseline of 4 applies because there are no parameters for the description to clarify.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'List all namespaces in the cluster', and adds a scope qualifier ('filtered by the namespace allowlist'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_pods, list_deployments, and list_nodes because it names the exact resource being listed.
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 description provides clear context: use this tool to enumerate all allowed namespaces in the cluster. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the scope is unambiguous and the constraint about the allowlist helps an agent understand when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.