Skip to main content
Glama
yasir27uk

MCP Server Kubernetes

by yasir27uk
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

kubectl_generic

Destructive

Execute any kubectl command with custom arguments, flags, namespace, and context to manage Kubernetes resources and troubleshoot workloads.

Instructions

Execute any kubectl command with the provided arguments and flags

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argsNoAdditional command arguments
nameNoResource name
flagsNoCommand flags as key-value pairs
commandYesThe kubectl command to execute (e.g. patch, rollout, top)
contextNoKubeconfig Context to use for the command (optional - defaults to null)
namespaceNoKubernetes namespacedefault
subCommandNoSubcommand if applicable (e.g. 'history' for rollout)
outputFormatNoOutput format (e.g. json, yaml, wide)
resourceTypeNoResource type (e.g. pod, deployment)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv3.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide destructiveHint=true, so agent knows potential destructiveness. Description adds no extra behavioral details (e.g., what gets destroyed, auth needs, rate limits). Adequate but not enhanced.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. Front-loaded with purpose. Could benefit from a caution or usage note, but remains appropriately concise.

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?

With 9 parameters, no output schema, and only destructiveHint annotation, description is very minimal. Lacks examples, output format hints, or guidance on error handling. Incomplete for a highly capable generic tool.

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 schema already documents all parameters. Description adds no additional meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 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?

Description clearly states it executes any kubectl command with arguments and flags. Verb 'execute' and resource 'kubectl command' are specific. Distinguishes from sibling tools by being generic, but could be more precise about scope.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool vs siblings like kubectl_get or kubectl_delete. Does not specify prerequisites, alternatives, or when to avoid. Agent must infer usage from name and siblings.

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