Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd Get Resource

argocd_get_resource
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a managed resource's live manifest from Argo CD, with managedFields and the last-applied annotation removed for cleaner inspection.

Instructions

Get a single managed resource's live manifest, with managedFields and the last-applied annotation removed.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fullNoReturn the raw API payload instead of the slim one
kindYesResource kind, e.g. Deployment
nameYesApplication name; accepts namespace/name for apps-in-any-namespace
groupNoAPI group ('' for core)
projectNoProject; with it a missing app is 404 and a wrong-project app is 403
versionNoAPI versionv1
namespaceNoResource namespace
app_namespaceNoOverride appNamespace; defaults to ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE
resource_nameYesTarget resource name

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

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral detail the annotations do not: the returned payload is slimmed, with managedFields and the last-applied annotation stripped, which maps directly onto the `full` flag's tradeoff.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and every clause earns its place by qualifying what the manifest is and how it has been modified.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey the return shape, and it does so usefully (live manifest minus managedFields and last-applied). It omits error/empty behavior and pagination-irrelevant details, but those are handled by parameter descriptions for this single-object read.

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% across all 9 parameters, including edge-case behavior like project-driven 404/403 and namespace defaults, so the schema carries the burden. The description adds only indirect meaning to `full` via the mention of stripped fields; it documents no parameter syntax itself, so the baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb (get), a precise resource (a single managed resource's live manifest), and the transformation applied to the output. It is clearly distinguishable in intent from manifest-listing siblings, though it never names an alternative to differentiate itself from argocd_get_manifests or argocd_get_managed_resources.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no conditions, and no named alternative among the many sibling getters (get_manifests, get_managed_resources, get_resource_tree). The reader must infer from 'live manifest' that this fetches the cluster-side object rather than the desired-state manifest.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools