list_podsList Kubernetes pods in a specific namespace or across all namespaces to inspect cluster resources.
List all pods in a namespace or across all namespaces
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| namespace | No |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the namespace-scoping behavior, including the all-namespaces option, but does not disclose return format, pagination, or ordering. There is no contradiction with 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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with no filler or repetition of the title. Every word contributes to the tool's meaning.
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 simple read-only tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description plus annotations are sufficient for correct invocation. It does not describe the returned data shape, but the annotations and low schema complexity make that a minor gap rather than a blocking omission.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the only parameter's effect by noting pods can be listed 'in a namespace or across all namespaces', which maps directly to the optional namespace parameter. It does not spell out the default behavior in schema terms, but the meaning is still clear.
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?
Description uses a specific verb and resource ('List all pods') and clearly scopes the behavior to a namespace or all namespaces. It is immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like list_deployments and list_services by naming the pod resource explicitly.
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 namespace/all-namespaces context gives clear invocation context, but there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_resource or list_deployments. Usage must be inferred from the tool name and description rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.