Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd Get Resource Tree

argocd_get_resource_tree
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an Argo CD application's live resource tree as slim nodes with kind, name, health, images, and parent, then filter by kind or health and page through results.

Instructions

Get the live resource tree as slim nodes (kind, name, health, images, parent).

Drops networkingInfo, uid, and resourceVersion. Filters by kind and health client-side.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoClient-side kind filter
nameYesApplication name; accepts namespace/name for apps-in-any-namespace
limitNoMax results to return (1-200)
offsetNoResult offset for paging
projectNoProject; with it a missing app is 404 and a wrong-project app is 403
include_infoNoInclude each node's info[] entries
app_namespaceNoOverride appNamespace; defaults to ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE
health_statusNoClient-side health filter
include_orphanedNoInclude orphaned nodes

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 read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral detail beyond that: which fields are dropped (networkingInfo, uid, resourceVersion) and that kind/health filtering is client-side. It does not mention pagination defaults, but the schema covers those.

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?

Two dense, front-loaded sentences: output shape first, then what is dropped, then filtering behavior. Every clause adds information with 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 read-only tree fetch with a full schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns, what it omits, and the filtering model. The main missing piece is how it relates to the sibling managed-resources tool, but that is a usage-guideline gap rather than a completeness gap for calling the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter is already documented. The description reinforces that kind and health_status are client-side filters, which is a minor addition. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter semantics.

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 (Get) and resource (live resource tree) and immediately characterizes the output as 'slim nodes (kind, name, health, images, parent)'. This distinguishes it from argocd_get_managed_resources and argocd_get_resource, which return different shapes.

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?

The description implies usage by describing output shape and client-side filtering, but does not state when to pick this tool over argocd_get_managed_resources or argocd_get_resource. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are named.

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