MCP Server Kubernetes

port_forward

Forward a local port to a Kubernetes resource port to reach internal services and debug workloads without public exposure.

Instructions

Forward a local port to a port on a Kubernetes resource

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "resourceType": "<resourceType>",
      "resourceName": "<resourceName>",
      "localPort": "<localPort>",
      "targetPort": "<targetPort>"
    },
    "name": "port_forward"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`localPort`	Yes
`namespace`	No
`targetPort`	Yes
`resourceName`	Yes
`resourceType`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv3.2.0Sep 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations provide no readDestructive hints. The description only states the basic operation without disclosing behavioral traits such as network activity duration, port conflict handling, or cleanup requirements. For a tool that opens a tunnel, more context is needed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is concise (one sentence), but it is too terse for a tool with 5 parameters. It would benefit from additional structure without being verbose.

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?

Given the complexity (forwarding ports, multiple parameters, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It does not mention supported resource types, error cases, how to stop the forward, or relationship to sibling tool 'stop_port_forward'. The agent lacks sufficient context for reliable invocation.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any parameters. Parameter names (resourceType, resourceName, etc.) are self-explanatory but lack syntax, constraints, or examples. The description should add meaning beyond the 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?

The description clearly states the action and resource: 'Forward a local port to a port on a Kubernetes resource'. It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'stop_port_forward' and other kubectl operations.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., exec_in_pod, kubectl_logs). No prerequisites, exclusions, or context for when port forwarding is appropriate.

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