Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

Get a Command

get_command
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch one asynchronous-operation command by its UUID, to check the status of a long-running operation issued against a workload or volumeset (cron run, replica stop, volume expand / shrink / snapshot / restore / delete). Returns the lifecycleStage, status messages, and full JSON. Pass kind (workload|volumeset), gvc, name, and the commandId (discover ids with list_commands).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gvcYesGVC slug (lowercase kebab-case). Use the GVC the user named; otherwise discover with list_resources (kind="gvc") and let them choose — never guess (a wrong GVC targets the wrong environment).
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.
kindYesParent resource that owns the command — `workload` (cron runs via workload_start_cron, replica stops via workload_stop_replica) or `volumeset` (volume expand / shrink / snapshot / restore / delete). Both are GVC-scoped.
nameYesName of the parent workload or volumeset the command was issued against.
commandIdYesUUID of the command (the `id` field from list_commands, or the Location of the issuing call).

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 declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds useful behavioral context: it returns lifecycleStage, status messages, and full JSON, and covers operation types per kind. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences pack purpose, examples, return info, and required params. The description is front-loaded and every clause adds value; no filler or redundancy.

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?

With a highly detailed schema and annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use, how to discover IDs, and what it returns. The output schema exists, so return details need not be exhaustive. No significant gaps.

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%, with each parameter fully documented, including guidance on never guessing org/gvc and discovering commandId via list_commands. The tool description merely summarizes these params without adding new semantics, 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 clearly states the tool fetches an asynchronous-operation command by UUID to check status of long-running operations. It provides examples (cron run, replica stop, volume operations) and mentions return content, distinguishing it from siblings like list_commands and get_workload_logs.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool (to check status of long-running operations) and points to list_commands for discovering command IDs. It lacks an explicit 'when-not to use' clause, but the context and alternative reference are strong.

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