Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
kubeguard-mcp

kubeguard-mcp

by xuange-hu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

kubeguard_scan

Audit Kubernetes manifest text and return findings with path:line evidence to identify misconfigurations before deployment.

Instructions

Audit Kubernetes manifest text. Returns findings with path:line evidence.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "kubeguard_scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo<memory>
contentNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. 'Audit' implies a read-only analysis operation, and 'Returns findings with path:line evidence' discloses the output shape. However, it does not explain parameter interaction, side effects, permissions, or error behavior.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loads the tool's purpose, and includes the return evidence without unnecessary words. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a two-parameter scan tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It states what the tool does and roughly what it returns, but leaves the input parameters and sibling routing ambiguous.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for both parameters. 'Manifest text' weakly points to the content parameter, but the path parameter, its default '<memory>', and the relationship between path and content are completely unexplained.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Audit Kubernetes manifest text.' It also states the return shape as 'findings with path:line evidence.' It implicitly distinguishes from kubeguard_scan_path by focusing on manifest text rather than a path, but it does not explicitly distinguish among the other sibling tools.

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?

The description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as kubeguard_scan_path, kubeguard_rules, kubeguard_rbac, or kubeguard_demo. At best, 'manifest text' implies that this tool is for inline text rather than file paths, but that routing is not stated.

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