list_servicesList Kubernetes services in a namespace or across all namespaces to inspect available resources. Provide a namespace to filter, or leave it empty to include every namespace.
List all services 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the namespace-scoping behavior, but it does not disclose pagination, sorting, RBAC requirements, or list size limits.
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 entire description is one crisp sentence with no filler; the core scoping information is front-loaded.
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 list tool with a single optional parameter and annotations covering side effects, this description is nearly sufficient. It lacks an explicit mention of return shape or pagination, but the function's purpose is fully stated.
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 description coverage, so the description carries the parameter burden. 'In a namespace or across all namespaces' clarifies that namespace is optional and that omitting it means all namespaces, which is the key semantic needed.
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 names the specific verb ('List') and resource ('services') and precisely defines the scope as 'in a namespace or across all namespaces'. This makes it easy to distinguish 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 description implies when to use it: whenever services need to be enumerated, with optional namespace scoping. However, it never names alternatives such as list_resource or states when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.