Skip to main content
Glama

Argocd Generate Applicationset

argocd_generate_applicationset
Read-onlyIdempotent

Preview the applications an ApplicationSet would produce by dry-running its generators. Submit the manifest as JSON; nothing is created.

Instructions

Dry-run the generators: preview the applications an ApplicationSet would produce. Creates nothing. The manifest must be JSON.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applicationsetYesFull ApplicationSet manifest as JSON
appset_namespaceNoApplicationSet namespace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -{
      -  "properties": {
      -    "result": {
      -      "type": "string"
      -    }
      -  },
      -  "required": [
      -    "result"
      -  ],
      -  "type": "object",
      -  "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
      -}New value: +null
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description reinforces this with 'Creates nothing' and adds a concrete input constraint ('The manifest must be JSON'). It stops short of describing how large a preview can be or any limits.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and immediately followed by the two facts an agent most needs (no side effects, JSON input). No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a two-parameter, read-only dry-run tool with no output schema, the description conveys the action, the no-side-effect guarantee, and the input format. It could say a bit more about what the returned preview contains, but nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description's 'manifest must be JSON' restates the applicationset parameter's own description and adds no new semantics for appset_namespace; baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Dry-run the generators ... the applications an ApplicationSet would produce') and clearly distinguishes itself from read-only siblings such as argocd_get_applicationset and argocd_list_applicationsets, which return existing objects rather than previewing generated ones.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

'Dry-run' and 'preview' imply the use case (checking what an ApplicationSet would generate before applying it), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over argocd_get_applicationset or of any prerequisites. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.