Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd Run Resource Action

argocd_run_resource_action
Destructive

Run destructive custom actions on Argo CD resources, such as restarting a Deployment or pausing a Rollout, to manage workloads.

Instructions

Run a custom resource action (restart a Deployment, pause a Rollout). destructive.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesResource kind, e.g. Deployment
nameYesApplication name; accepts namespace/name for apps-in-any-namespace
groupNoAPI group ('' for core)
actionYesAction name, e.g. restart
projectNoProject; with it a missing app is 404 and a wrong-project app is 403
versionNoAPI versionv1
namespaceNoResource namespace
parametersNoAction parameters
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

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and openWorldHint=true; the trailing word 'destructive' merely repeats a structured field rather than adding context. With annotations present the bar is lower, but nothing is said about what state is destroyed, whether actions are reversible, required permissions, or side effects on the running workload.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the verb and scope front-loaded and zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness leaves gaps that concision was traded against.

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 10-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description is thin: it does not indicate that name/action/kind/resource_name are all required, nor that the action must exist for the target kind. The annotations do carry the safety profile, and the schema is fully documented, so the gap is moderate rather than severe.

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, and the baseline is 3. The parenthetical examples loosely connect kind/action pairs ('restart' with Deployment, 'pause' with Rollout), which adds marginal mapping value, but nothing is said about how the free-form 'parameters' object should be populated.

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 (Run) and resource (custom resource action) and grounds it with two concrete examples (restart a Deployment, pause a Rollout). It does not, however, explicitly separate itself from the sibling argocd_list_resource_actions, which is the natural point of confusion for an agent picking between them.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent is not told to check argocd_list_resource_actions first to discover valid action names, nor what preconditions (sync state, app health) must hold for an action to succeed.

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