Skip to main content
Glama
vish288

mcp-argocd

by vish288
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

Argocd Wait For Operation

argocd_wait_for_operation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Polls an Argo CD application until its operation reaches a terminal phase, disappears, or times out. Returns latest operation, sync, and health status, never erroring on timeout.

Instructions

Poll an application until its operation reaches a terminal phase, disappears, or times out.

Never errors on timeout; returns timed_out=true with the latest operation, sync, and health.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesApplication name; accepts namespace/name for apps-in-any-namespace
projectNoProject; with it a missing app is 404 and a wrong-project app is 403
app_namespaceNoOverride appNamespace; defaults to ARGOCD_APP_NAMESPACE
timeout_secondsNoGive up after N seconds (10-600)
poll_interval_secondsNoSeconds between polls (1-30)

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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint), so the description earns credit for going further: it discloses that timeouts never surface as errors and that the response carries timed_out=true with the latest operation, sync, and health. That error-semantics disclosure is exactly the kind of behavior annotations cannot express.

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, no filler. The terminating behavior is front-loaded and the non-obvious timeout guarantee is stated immediately after, with nothing wasted.

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 (operation, sync, health) and the timed_out flag, plus the terminal-phase semantics. It stops short of enumerating which phases count as terminal, which would be the last missing piece for an agent interpreting the result.

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 (name, project, app_namespace, timeout_seconds, poll_interval_seconds) is already documented with ranges and defaults in the schema. The description's mention of 'timed out' loosely ties to timeout_seconds but adds no format, interaction, or defaulting detail beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource (poll an application's operation) along with the three termination conditions: terminal phase, disappearance, or timeout. This is clearly distinct from a one-shot read like argocd_get_operation, though it never names that sibling explicitly to close the loop.

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 only implied: an agent must infer that this is the tool to call after triggering argocd_sync_application, argocd_rollback_application, or argocd_run_resource_action in order to block on completion. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative such as argocd_get_operation for non-blocking checks.

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