Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

Get Permissions for a Resource Kind

get_permissions
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch available permissions for a resource kind from the /-schema/permissions endpoint. Recommended reading before first use: get_cpln_skill("access-control") — 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.
kindYesResource kind to get permissions for

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
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the endpoint and a runbook reference but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as error handling, auth requirements, or rate limits. It does not contradict the 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?

The description is two sentences long and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, the second gives a runbook pointer. No unnecessary words or repetition, 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.

Completeness4/5

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

The tool is simple, with a rich schema, comprehensive annotations, and an output schema. The description covers the operation and points to a runbook for deeper context. It could have mentioned the return value format, but the output schema fills that gap, making it complete enough.

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 both org and kind having descriptive text. Org's schema description includes explicit guidance (e.g., NEVER guess, ask if missing, stop on org-not-found), so the tool description does not need to elaborate. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the 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 explicitly states 'Fetch available permissions for a resource kind' and names the endpoint, making the operation unambiguous. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_resource or get_resource_schema by focusing specifically on permissions retrieval.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description includes a prerequisite: 'Recommended reading before first use: get_cpln_skill("access-control")', which is a usage preparation hint. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives or provide exclusions, so the usage context is implied from the purpose sentence rather than directly spelled out.

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