Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

Create a Domain

create_domain

Provision a Control Plane domain, map routes to workloads, and capture DNS records required for validation. Minimal port item is {number, protocol}; route items minimally need workloadLink and may omit prefix/regex to match /. Run this in the organization that will own the domain. 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.
tagsNoOptional tags; they behave like Kubernetes labels. Special behavior-changing tags: cpln/routeLimitOverride (raises the per-port route cap to 200), cpln/skipDNSCheck, cpln/wildcard (wildcard certificate).
portsYesRequired listener list. Each listener minimally needs number and protocol; cors, routes, and tls are optional nested blocks.
domainYesFully qualified domain name such as example.com or api.example.com.
dnsModeYesDNS delegation mode. cname — REQUIRED for apex domains (example.com) and the common choice for a single subdomain. ns — subdomains ONLY (delegates that subdomain zone to Control Plane); the platform rejects ns on an apex.
gvcLinkNoOptional GVC link (full or shorthand //gvc/{name}). Each workload in the GVC gets a {workload}.{domain} subdomain. Mutually exclusive with workloadLink.
descriptionNoDomain description so operators understand the purpose (treat it like a concise annotation).
workloadLinkNoOptional workload link (e.g. //gvc/{gvc}/workload/{name}) to bind the ENTIRE domain to one workload — STATEFUL workloads only (the platform rejects serverless/standard here). For those, target the workload with ports[].routes instead. Mutually exclusive with gvcLink.
acceptAllHostsNoAccept any host header (defaults to false).
certChallengeTypeNoCertificate challenge type (http01 or dns01). Optional — omit for the platform default, and MUST be omitted for .internal domains (the platform rejects it there).
acceptAllSubdomainsNoAccept any subdomain (defaults to false).

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly=false, and the description adds behavioral context by saying the tool will 'capture DNS records required for validation' and by specifying minimal route/port requirements. It does not go into failure modes (e.g., non-80/443 ports leaving warning status), but those are detailed in the schema, so this is acceptable.

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 four sentences long, front-loaded with purpose, then minimal-input guidance, then ownership and runbook recommendations. Every sentence contributes valuable information with no redundancy, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the complex input schema (100% covered) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides the necessary high-level purpose, critical input minimalisms, and a runbook pointer. It is complete enough for an agent to understand when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description's mention of 'minimal port item is {number, protocol}' and 'route items minimally need workloadLink' is a concise summary of what the schema already documents, adding no genuinely new parameter semantics.

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 opens with 'Provision a Control Plane domain, map routes to workloads, and capture DNS records required for validation,' which clearly states the create operation with specific resource and scope. It also gives minimal input shapes for ports and routes, thus distinguishing itself from sibling tools like add_domain_route and update_domain.

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 advises 'Run this in the organization that will own the domain' and recommends reading get_cpln_skill("domain") before first use, providing clear context on when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention exclusions or alternatives (e.g., using add_domain_route for existing domains), which prevents a 5.

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