Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd List Applicationsets

argocd_list_applicationsets
Read-onlyIdempotent

List Argo CD ApplicationSets with slim rows showing generators, strategy, health, and conditions to inspect GitOps appset status.

Instructions

List ApplicationSets with slim rows (generators present, strategy, health, conditions).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results to return (1-200)
offsetNoResult offset for paging
projectsNoFilter by project names
selectorNoLabel selector
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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true, idempotent=true, openWorld=true, so safety is covered. The description adds that rows are 'slim' and names the included fields (generators, strategy, health, conditions), which is useful. It doesn't mention pagination behavior or default limit effect beyond what the schema states.

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 tight sentence, field list front-loaded, zero padding.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It omits what happens with pagination, the default limit of 50, and what 'conditions' looks like, but annotations carry the safety profile.

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 every parameter is already documented. The description does not add syntax or semantics for projects/selector/namespace filtering beyond naming them indirectly. Baseline 3 is correct.

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 (List) and resource (ApplicationSets), and names the sibling it differs from implicitly via 'slim rows' vs get_applicationset's detail. An agent can tell this is a list/discovery operation distinct from argocd_get_applicationset.

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?

Usage is implied by 'List' and the slim-row framing, but the description never explicitly says when to use this vs argocd_get_applicationset or argocd_generate_applicationset. No exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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