Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd List Applications

argocd_list_applications
Read-onlyIdempotent

List Argo CD applications with filters for sync status, health, project, and destination to monitor deployments and detect issues.

Instructions

List applications with slim rows (name, project, sync/health, source, destination, policy).

Filters sync_status, health_status, destination, and name_prefix client-side; the Argo CD list endpoint has no paging, so results are sorted by name and sliced here.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
repoNoFilter by source repo URL
limitNoMax results to return (1-200)
offsetNoResult offset for paging
projectsNoFilter by project names
selectorNoLabel selector, e.g. team=platform
destinationNoMatch destination.server or destination.name
name_prefixNoClient-side name prefix filter
sync_statusNoFilter by sync status
app_namespaceNoOverride appNamespace; defaults to ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE
health_statusNoFilter by health
dest_namespaceNoMatch destination namespace
operation_phaseNoFilter by current operation phase

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description goes beyond them by disclosing that the upstream list endpoint has no paging, that results are sorted by name and sliced locally to satisfy limit/offset, and that four filters run client-side — non-obvious latency and result-ordering behavior an agent should know.

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 sentences: the first front-loads what is returned, the second carries the behavioral caveats. No filler, and the most decision-relevant fact (slim output shape) comes first.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by naming the returned fields. Combined with the client-side filtering and slicing notes, an agent has enough to call it correctly; only the interaction between defaults (limit 50 / offset 0) and the name-sorted slice is left implicit.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a distinction the schema does not: sync_status, health_status, destination, and name_prefix are applied client-side rather than server-side. That is real semantic value about filter cost and correctness beyond the per-parameter descriptions.

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?

Specific verb+resource ('List applications') plus an enumeration of the returned row shape (name, project, sync/health, source, destination, policy), which is unusual and useful detail. It is trivially distinguished from singletons like argocd_get_application or argocd_list_repository_apps by its scope.

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 the tool's role (filtered bulk listing) but never states when to prefer it over siblings such as argocd_get_application for a single app or argocd_list_repository_apps for a repo view. No exclusions or prerequisites are given, so usage is only inferable.

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