Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd List Resource Actions

argocd_list_resource_actions
Read-onlyIdempotent

List custom actions available on an Argo CD resource, such as restart or pause, to see supported operational tasks.

Instructions

List the custom resource actions available on a resource (e.g. restart, pause).

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds nothing behavioral beyond what the annotations and name provide — no note on auth requirements, whether the listed actions carry argument schemas, or error behavior when the resource doesn't exist.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource, the verb and illustrative examples; no filler and nothing that could be cut without losing meaning.

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?

With 8 parameters, no output schema and a read-only list operation, the description is marginally adequate but leaves the return shape (bare action names vs. actions with parameters) and the relationship to argocd_run_resource_action unstated. Since no output schema exists, the description should carry more of that burden.

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% across all 8 parameters, including the non-obvious project/app_namespace ones, so the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds no parameter detail. Baseline 3 is correct for a fully-documented schema.

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?

The description pairs a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('custom resource actions available on a resource') and gives concrete examples (restart, pause), so an agent knows exactly what comes back. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling argocd_run_resource_action, which is the obvious adjacent tool.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no routing to alternatives such as argocd_run_resource_action. Usage is only implied by the verb 'List' — an agent must infer that this is the discovery step before running an action.

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