Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

Get Resource Schema & API Endpoints

get_resource_schema
Read-onlyIdempotent

Return the exact object schema and REST API endpoints for a Control Plane resource kind, so you can author an accurate manifest for cpln apply or call the API directly. ALWAYS call this FIRST whenever you are about to write a cpln apply YAML/JSON file, set up CI/CD that applies Control Plane resources, or build a request body for the REST API — do not hand-write a manifest or guess field names from memory. Pick a kind and pass org (and gvc for workload/identity/volumeset). Large schemas come back as a shallow map with deep sections collapsed to {"_expand":""} stubs; pass path (e.g. "spec.containers") to expand a section on demand. Server-managed fields (id/status/version/etc.) are already removed; name and kind are required at create.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gvcNoGVC slug. REQUIRED only for GVC-scoped kinds (workload, identity, volumeset); ignored for org-scoped kinds.
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.
kindYesThe Control Plane resource kind to describe. Returns its apply-ready object schema plus the concrete REST endpoints. workload, identity, and volumeset are GVC-scoped (require `gvc`); all others are org-scoped.
pathNoDot-path into the schema to expand in full, e.g. "spec.containers" or "spec.defaultOptions.autoscaling". Omit for the top-level overview. Deeply nested objects come back as {"_expand":"<path>"} stubs — call this tool again with `path` set to that value to see that section.
maxDepthNoOverride how many object levels to expand from the path root. Omit for the default (small schemas return in full; large ones return a shallow map you can drill into). Raise it to pull more in one 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses that large schemas return shallow maps with `{"_expand":"<path>"}` stubs, that server-managed fields are removed, and that `name` and `kind` are required at create. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond what annotations provide.

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 appropriately sized, front-loaded with the core purpose, and every sentence delivers actionable guidance without redundancy. It balances length with density of useful information.

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 rich input schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete. It covers what the tool returns, when to use it, how to handle large schemas, and the requirements for creating resources, with no critical gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `path` expansion behavior with an example ('spec.containers') and clarifying the `gvc` requirement for GVC-scoped kinds, slightly exceeding 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 explicitly states it returns 'the exact object schema and REST API endpoints for a Control Plane resource kind' with the purpose of authoring manifests for `cpln apply` or direct API calls. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning itself as the mandatory first step before any manifest creation.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use instructions: 'ALWAYS call this FIRST whenever you are about to write a cpln apply YAML/JSON file, set up CI/CD... or build a request body.' It also states what not to do ('do not hand-write a manifest or guess field names from memory') and explains when to pass `gvc` and `path`.

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