MCP server for managing Giant Swarm Kubernetes applications, providing tools and prompts for app deployment, configuration, and troubleshooting
mcp-giantswarm-apps demonstrates solid foundational quality with consistent naming conventions, clear descriptions, and complete parameter schemas across all 16 tools. Tool names follow verb_noun patterns (app_list, app_get, app_create, etc.) and are action-oriented. All tools have descriptions in the 30-100 character range, meeting the baseline. Input schemas include type definitions and parameter descriptions for nearly all parameters. However, there are notable gaps: (1) output schemas are not documented in the provided code samples, making it impossible to verify that responses include necessary chaining IDs and follow the mxe:include-chaining-ids pattern; (2) error handling details are absent, no evidence of recovery guidance or error categorization; (3) no tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint) despite clear risk profiles (5 READ_ONLY, 2 WRITE, 1 DESTRUCTIVE); (4) most parameter descriptions lack format constraints (enums, ranges, patterns), e.g., 'status' parameter accepts freeform strings instead of an enum like 'deployed|failed|pending|unknown'; (5) dependency relationships between parameters (e.g., 'cluster' overrides 'in-cluster' in app_create) are documented but could be clearer. The tool definitions appear complete and well-structured, but lack the refinements that distinguish A-tier servers from B/C-tier ones.
Create a new Giant Swarm app
Delete a Giant Swarm app
Get detailed information about a specific app
List Giant Swarm apps with optional filtering
Update an existing Giant Swarm app
Get detailed information about a specific app catalog entry
List app catalog entries
No documented output schemas for any tool. LLMs cannot determine what fields to expect in responses, blocking composition planning and forcing discovery detours.
Tool annotations missing: no readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, or idempotentHint attributes despite clear risk profiles (app_delete is DESTRUCTIVE, app_create/update are WRITE, others are READ_ONLY). Agents cannot distinguish safe-to-retry operations from irreversible ones.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-22 | C | 69 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
| 2026-03-09 | F | 0 | - | v1 |
Search for apps in the catalog
List all available versions of an app
Get detailed information about a specific catalog
List available app catalogs
Get the configuration for a deployed app
Get the configuration schema for an app
Get detailed information about a specific organization
List available organizations
Validate access to an organization namespace
Parameter constraints not formalized as enums or patterns. 'status' in app_list accepts freeform 'deployed|failed|pending|etc' but LLMs may hallucinate invalid values like 'active' or 'running'. No length limits, regex patterns, or range specs for numeric parameters.
No error handling guidance visible. Tool descriptions do not explain what errors are possible, which are retryable, or how to recover. LLMs receive raw failures with no next-step guidance.
Destructive operation (app_delete) lacks confirmation or dry-run support. Agents can delete apps without a chance to verify, risking accidental data loss.
List tools (app_list, appcatalogentry_list, catalog_list) lack pagination parameters (limit, offset/cursor) and total count indicators. Returning unbounded results will exhaust token context and degrade LLM reasoning.
Parameter descriptions lack format guidance. E.g., 'cluster' param in app_create says 'Target workload cluster name' but does not specify valid naming conventions, length limits, or character restrictions. LLMs may pass invalid identifiers.
Tool composition hints missing. Descriptions do not say when to call discovery tools first (e.g., 'Call appcatalogentry_search() to find the app name before calling app_create'). LLMs must infer the sequence.