Skip to main content
Glama
vmware-skills

vmware-avi

by vmware-skills
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

ako_ingress_diagnose

Read-onlyIdempotent

Diagnose why an Ingress lacks a corresponding AVI Virtual Service by validating IngressClass, TLS secrets, and backend Services. Get numbered issues and kubectl fixes to resolve configuration problems.

Instructions

[READ] Diagnose why one Ingress has no corresponding AVI Virtual Service.

Validates IngressClass ('avi'/'avi-lb'), TLS secrets and backend Services. Returns annotations, a numbered issue list and kubectl fixes. Use ako_ingress_map first to find Ingresses lacking a VS. Checks configuration only; when it is clean, try ako_logs and ako_sync_status.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesExact Ingress resource name.
contextNokubeconfig context (optional), from ako_clusters.
namespaceNoNamespace holding the Ingress (default 'default').default

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.8.14
  2. Removedv1.8.8
  3. Addedv1.5.29
  4. Removedv1.5.28
  5. First observedv1.5.22

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description reinforces with 'Checks configuration only'. It additionally discloses validation targets and output shape, with no hidden side effects.

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?

Three compact sentences front-load the core diagnostic purpose, then add validation scope, output, and routing to siblings. No filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Between annotations, 100% schema coverage, and output schema, the description fills the remaining gaps: diagnostic scope, output content, and next-step tools. An agent can invoke it correctly without further inference.

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 covers all three parameters with descriptions, so description need not repeat them. It only broadly references validated resources and doesn't add parameter-specific semantics beyond schema.

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 diagnostic action on a single Ingress resource ('no corresponding AVI Virtual Service') and lists what it validates. The [READ] prefix and focus on causes/issues distinguish it from map/logs siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly sequences the tool: run ako_ingress_map first to identify affected Ingresses, and fall back to ako_logs/ako_sync_status when config is clean. This provides a clear decision path and alternatives.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools