argocd_get_clusterFetch a single Argo CD cluster by name or server URL to inspect its details; credentials are always removed, even when requesting the full API payload.
Get one cluster by name or server URL. The credential config is always removed, even with full=True.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| full | No | Return the raw API payload instead of the slim one | |
| cluster | Yes | Cluster name, or server URL (starts with http) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Output schema / (root)Previous value: -{
- "properties": {
- "result": {
- "type": "string"
- }
- },
- "required": [
- "result"
- ],
- "type": "object",
- "x-fastmcp-wrap-result": true
-}New value: +nullv0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the bar is lower, and the description adds a genuinely useful non-obvious behavior: the credential config is always stripped, even with full=True. That is a security-relevant disclosure the annotations do not provide. It omits any note on error behavior when the cluster is not found.
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, zero waste, with the primary lookup behavior front-loaded and the credential caveat second. Nothing can be removed without losing 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 read-only two-parameter get tool with no output schema and annotations already declaring the safety profile, the definition covers the essential call path and its most surprising side effect. A brief note on the returned shape or not-found behavior would make it fully complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description mildly reinforces the 'cluster' identifier semantics and clarifies that full=True does not restore credentials, but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (one cluster) plus the lookup key (name or server URL), which clearly separates it from the sibling argocd_list_clusters that returns many. It does not name the sibling explicitly, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied: 'Get one cluster by name or server URL' tells the agent this is the single-cluster lookup path, and the sibling naming list makes the alternative evident. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or prerequisite guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.