Skip to main content
Glama
zhouweico

mcp-kubevela

by zhouweico
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

vela_list_project_targets

Read-onlyIdempotent

List available delivery targets for a specified KubeVela project to validate deployment destinations before deploying.

Instructions

列出指定项目可用的交付目标（target），部署前确认目标合法性。

对应 API：GET /api/v1/projects/{projectName}/targets

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_nameYes项目名称
response_formatNo输出格式：markdown 或 jsonmarkdown

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • removedInput schema / $defs / ListProjectTargetsInput
      Removed value: -{
-  "additionalProperties": false,
-  "description": "列出项目交付目标的输入参数",
-  "properties": {
-    "project_name": {
-      "description": "项目名称",
-      "minLength": 1,
-      "title": "Project Name",
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "response_format": {
-      "$ref": "#/$defs/ResponseFormat",
-      "default": "markdown"
-    }
-  },
-  "required": [
-    "project_name"
-  ],
-  "title": "ListProjectTargetsInput",
-  "type": "object"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / params
      Removed value: -{
-  "$ref": "#/$defs/ListProjectTargetsInput"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / project_name
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "项目名称",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "title": "Project Name",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / response_format
      Added value: +{
+  "$ref": "#/$defs/ResponseFormat",
+  "default": "markdown",
+  "description": "输出格式：markdown 或 json"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "params"
-]New value: +[
+  "project_name"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds the API endpoint and the purpose (pre-deployment validation) but no additional behavioral traits like pagination or response structure. With annotations present, this is adequate but not enriched.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes the API endpoint as supplementary info. Every sentence earns its place, with no redundant or verbose text.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple read-only list tool with annotations covering safety, an output schema present, and all parameters documented, the description is sufficient. It states purpose, usage context, and API reference. Slight deduction for not mentioning that results are specifically for the given project, though this is implied by the resource scoping.

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 coverage is 100%: both project_name and response_format have Chinese descriptions in the schema. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond restating the tool's purpose. Baseline 3 applies because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 lists available delivery targets for a specified project, using a specific verb ('列出') and resource ('项目可用的交付目标'). It differentiates from sibling tool vela_list_targets by explicitly scoping to a project, and mentions the use case (pre-deployment validation).

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool: '部署前确认目标合法性' (confirm target legality before deployment). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as comparing with vela_list_targets which lists targets globally without project scope.

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