Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

Add a Route to a Domain Listener

add_domain_route
Idempotent

Append a route entry to an existing port listener. Minimal route is {workloadLink}; omit prefix/regex to match /. Routes are matched by prefix (default) or regex; the new route must not collide with an existing one. Use update_domain_route to replace an existing entry. 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.
routeYesRoute entry forwarding listener traffic to a workload. Minimal valid route: { "workloadLink": "//gvc/{gvc}/workload/{name}" }. All matchers are optional; omit prefix/regex to match /.
domainYesFully qualified domain name.
portNumberYesExisting listener port number to target.

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 contradicts the idempotentHint annotation. It states 'the new route must not collide with an existing one,' meaning that attempting to add the same route twice would fail on the second call, which is not idempotent behavior. This is a direct conflict with the annotation.

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 with no filler. It front-loads the core action, includes the key constraint (collision), points to the alternative tool, and gives a practical recommendation. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The description provides key contextual details: appending to an existing listener, the collision rule, matching behavior (prefix/default or regex), and a pointer to the runbook. It does not explicitly mention prerequisites like needing a created domain or port listener, though 'existing port listener' implies that. Given the tool's complexity and rich schema, the description is nearly complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema, such as 'omit prefix/regex to match /', but this is also present in the schema's route description. The description does not substantially enhance parameter understanding beyond the baseline.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Append a route entry to an existing port listener.' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling tool update_domain_route by explicitly noting that update replaces an existing entry while this appends.

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 states when to use this tool vs. alternatives: 'Use update_domain_route to replace an existing entry.' Also recommends reading the domain skill runbook before first use, providing clear context and a pointer to additional guidance.

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