Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

Get Workload Events

get_workload_events
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch event log for a workload to diagnose readiness/liveness probe issues and errors. Use after a deploy fails — pair with list_deployments and get_workload_logs to triangulate the failure. Recommended reading before first use: get_cpln_skill("workload-troubleshooting") — the runbook for this tool family (read once per session).

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.
nameYesWorkload name (lowercase kebab-case, must start with a letter, max 49 chars, cannot end with -headless). The name is IMMUTABLE — "renaming" requires delete + recreate (loses public URL, internal DNS, policy targetLinks).

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds context about the tool's diagnostic purpose and suggests a workflow, which supplements the annotations without contradiction.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: purpose, usage scenario, and recommended prerequisite. Front-loaded with the core action and outcome, no fluff or repetition.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema, the description fully covers when to use, why, and complementary actions. Combined with rich schema descriptions and annotations, it is complete for effective use.

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 (org, gvc, name) having detailed guidance (e.g., never guess org, discover gvc). The description itself doesn't add parameter-level details, but the schema already does the heavy lifting, warranting the baseline score.

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 states a specific verb ('Fetch'), resource ('event log for a workload'), and the diagnostic purpose ('readiness/liveness probe issues and errors'). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like get_workload_logs by specifying event log vs. logs.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use after a deploy fails') and pairs it with specific alternatives/complements ('list_deployments and get_workload_logs'). Also recommends a runbook (get_cpln_skill) for first-time users, providing valuable context.

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