mcp-kubevela

by zhouweico

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Score Discussions Admin

Python

Hybrid

vela_list_definitions

Read-onlyIdempotent

List KubeVela definitions by type. Get a definition's schema, include hidden entries, and choose markdown/JSON.

Instructions

查看组件/运维特征/策略/工作流步骤定义；指定 definition_name 返回参数 schema。

对应 API：GET /api/v1/definitions[/{name}]?type=

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`def_type`	Yes	定义类型：component / trait / policy / workflowstep
`query_all`	No	是否包含隐藏定义（默认只列常用定义）
`definition_name`	No	定义名。填写后返回详情（含参数 schema）
`response_format`	No		markdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed7 schema fields changedv0.5.0Aug 2, 2026

removedInput schema / $defs / ListDefinitionsInput

Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "description": "查询 X-Definition 的输入参数",
-  "properties": {
-    "def_type": {
-      "$ref": "#/$defs/DefinitionType",
-      "description": "定义类型：component / trait / policy / workflowstep"
-    },
-    "definition_name": {
-      "anyOf": [
-        {
-          "type": "string"
-        },
-        {
-          "type": "null"
-        }
-      ],
-      "default": null,
-      "description": "定义名。填写后返回详情（含参数 schema）",
-      "title": "Definition Name"
-    },
-    "query_all": {
-      "default": false,
-      "description": "是否包含隐藏定义（默认只列常用定义）",
-      "title": "Query All",
-      "type": "boolean"
-    },
-    "response_format": {
-      "$ref": "#/$defs/ResponseFormat",
-      "default": "markdown"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "def_type"
-  ],
-  "title": "ListDefinitionsInput",
-  "type": "object"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / def_type

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/$defs/DefinitionType",
+  "description": "定义类型：component / trait / policy / workflowstep"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / definition_name

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "定义名。填写后返回详情（含参数 schema）",
+  "title": "Definition Name"
+}

removedInput schema / properties / params

Removed value: -{
-  "$ref": "#/$defs/ListDefinitionsInput"
-}

addedInput schema / properties / query_all

Added value: +{
+  "default": false,
+  "description": "是否包含隐藏定义（默认只列常用定义）",
+  "title": "Query All",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}

addedInput schema / properties / response_format

Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/$defs/ResponseFormat",
+  "default": "markdown"
+}

changedInput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "params"
-]New value: +[
+  "def_type"
+]

First observedv0.1.1Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only and idempotent behavior. The description adds context by noting that specifying definition_name returns the parameter schema and by providing the exact API endpoint, which goes beyond the basic safety profile.

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 remarkably concise: two sentences that front-load the core purpose and follow with the API reference. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with an output schema and good annotations, the description covers all essential aspects: what it lists, how to get details, and the underlying API. No critical information is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is high (75%), so the baseline is 3. The description enhances param understanding by explaining that definition_name triggers schema return and by mapping the definition types to Chinese labels, adding meaningful semantic context.

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 tool's function: viewing component/trait/policy/workflow step definitions, with the added behavior of returning a parameter schema when a definition name is specified. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that operate on applications, components, or projects.

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?

The description implies usage for listing definitions and retrieving schemas via the API mapping, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Sibling tools are not referenced, so the usage context is only implied.

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