Kubernetes security and compliance scanning server exposing vulnerability assessment, blast radius analysis, RBAC auditing, and compliance checking as MCP tools for AI assistants
Plexar exposes 6 Kubernetes security tools with clear, domain-specific descriptions (avg 150 chars). All tools have input schemas with type definitions and parameter descriptions. However, output schemas are not documented, LLMs cannot predict response structure for chaining. Parameter descriptions lack format constraints (e.g., namespace validation, severity enum values). No error handling guidance or recovery paths. Tools are well-named (verb_noun pattern) and focused on single concerns, but lack pagination, result limits, and field-level documentation needed for production agent use.
Audit RBAC permissions in a namespace. Identifies pods with cluster-admin, wildcard access, exec capability, secret access, and other dangerous permissions.
Run a SOC 2 compliance check against a namespace. Returns 20 Trust Service Criteria controls with pass/fail status, scores, evidence, and remediation.
Classify all workloads in a namespace by type (database, API gateway, auth, cache, ML, payment, etc.) and show risk multipliers applied to each.
Find all critical and high-severity CVEs across pods in a namespace, grouped by severity with fix versions where available.
Get detailed risk information for a specific pod including CVEs, blast radius, RBAC permissions, workload classification, and remediation recommendations.
Scan a Kubernetes namespace for vulnerabilities, blast radius, RBAC risks, and compliance. Returns a summary with pod scores, workload classifications, and risk tiers.
Output schemas not documented. LLMs cannot predict response structure (fields, types, nesting) for downstream tool chaining or data extraction. Responses appear to be free-text summaries rather than structured objects.
Parameter descriptions lack format constraints. 'namespace' accepts any string; 'min_severity' in find_critical_cves should declare enum (critical|high|medium) but only mentions it in description text. LLMs cannot parse constraints from prose.
No pagination or result limits documented. Tools like scan_namespace and find_critical_cves may return hundreds of items, risking context window exhaustion. No limit, offset, or cursor parameters visible.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 58 | 2026-07-28+ | v2 |
No error handling guidance. Tool implementations do not document what errors can occur (e.g., namespace not found, kubeconfig invalid, permission denied) or how LLMs should recover. Responses lack actionable error messages.
Tool composition incomplete. get_pod_risk requires pod_name but scan_namespace output structure unknown, LLM cannot extract pod names to chain calls. Missing chaining IDs in responses.