Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

Add a Domain Port Listener

add_domain_port
Idempotent

Add a new port listener to a domain. Minimal port is {number, protocol}; routes, cors, and tls are optional. Errors if a listener for that port number already exists — use the route/CORS/TLS tools to modify an existing listener instead. Recommended reading before first use: get_cpln_skill("domain") — the runbook for this tool family (read once per session).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
orgYesOrganization slug (lowercase kebab-case). NEVER guess — if the user has not named one, ask. On org-not-found, stop and ask; do not retry variants.
portYesComplete port listener definition. Minimal valid listener: { "number": 443, "protocol": "http" }; routes, cors, and tls are optional.
domainYesFully qualified domain name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYesWhether the call succeeded.
dataNoThe full machine-readable result — list rows, the resource object, query results. Read THIS, not just the summary.
summaryYesOne-line summary of the result.
nextStepsNoRecommended follow-up actions for this task, in order.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

The description states 'Errors if a listener for that port number already exists', which implies a non-idempotent create operation (a second identical call fails). This directly contradicts the annotation idempotentHint=true. Aside from this error condition, no further behavioral traits (e.g., effects on domain status, LB requirements) are disclosed in the description itself.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the primary action, and each sentence earns its place: minimal payload, duplicate-port error with alternative, and recommended reading. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (nested objects, optional routes/cors/tls) and the presence of a rich output schema, the description covers key context: duplicate error handling, alternative tool usage, and a runbook pointer. The port-number caveat (only 443/80 without LB) is left to the schema, which is acceptable. However, the idempotency contradiction prevents a perfect score.

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%, so parameters are already thoroughly documented. The description adds only 'Minimal port is {number, protocol}; routes, cors, and tls are optional', which repeats what the schema's port.description already states. No new parameter-level insight is provided, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific action ('Add a new port listener to a domain') and distinguishes from siblings like add_domain_route and remove_domain_port. It also clarifies the minimal required port structure, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly tells the agent when NOT to use this tool: if a listener for that port number already exists, use route/CORS/TLS tools instead. It also recommends reading the domain runbook via get_cpln_skill('domain') before first use, providing clear alternative paths and prerequisites.

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

All Control Plane toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool targets a distinct resource/action pair (e.g., get_resource vs get_resource_schema, list_deployments vs list_workload_replicas) and descriptions clearly differentiate purposes. No two tools appear to do the same thing.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (create_gvc, update_workload, list_resources, query_metrics) with consistent verbs. The few imperative verbs (browse, build, mount) still maintain the same verb-first structure.

Tool Count1/5

With 55 tools, this server far exceeds the typical well-scoped 3-15 tool range. While each tool appears purposeful, the sheer number creates selection overhead and falls into the extreme 50+ category on the rubric.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers nearly the full Control Plane lifecycle: CRUD for GVC, workload, identity, policy, volumeset, and domain, plus observability, templates, image builds, and Terraform. Minor gaps include referenced but missing configure_workload_* tools and no secret creation/deletion (by design).

Resources