Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

Get a Control Plane Skill

get_cpln_skill
Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns the runbook for one Control Plane task family — how to use the feature correctly, the platform constraints that are easy to miss, when it is the WRONG tool, and what to do with the result. Tools that belong to a family name their skill as recommended reading; read it once per session before the first such operation.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
skillYesSkill to read — tools name their skill as "recommended reading". Available: access-control, audit-compliance, autoscaling-capacity, cdn-rate-limiting, cpln, domain, environment-promotion, external-logging, firewall-networking, gitops-cicd, iac-terraform-pulumi, image, ipset-load-balancing, k8s-operator, logql-observability, metrics-observability, migration-patterns, mk8s-byok, native-networking, org-management, query-spec, setup-agent, setup-cloud-access, setup-secret, stateful-storage, tag, template-catalog, workload, workload-security, workload-troubleshooting.

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds rich behavioral context: the runbook includes 'platform constraints that are easy to miss', 'when it is the WRONG tool', and 'what to do with the result'. It also notes session-level reading, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and every phrase earns its place. It efficiently conveys purpose, content, and usage timing without 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?

The tool has a single enum parameter, rich schema coverage, and an output schema exists to describe return values. The description fully addresses what the runbook covers and when to read it, making it complete for the tool's simple yet specialized scope.

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% with a detailed enum description explaining 'Skill to read — tools name their skill as recommended reading'. The tool description adds little beyond the schema's own parameter description, so with high coverage a baseline 3 is appropriate; no extra meaning is needed.

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 'Returns the runbook for one Control Plane task family' with a specific verb and resource, and enumerates the runbook's contents (correct usage, platform constraints, wrong-tool guidance, result handling). This distinguishes it from the many sibling operational tools by positioning it as a meta-resource for learning, not a direct operation.

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 gives explicit context: 'Tools that belong to a family name their skill as recommended reading; read it once per session before the first such operation.' This tells the agent when to use the tool, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria beyond implying it is a prerequisite.

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