Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

List Workload Deployments

list_deployments
Read-onlyIdempotent

A workload's deployments — its per-location rollout status. This is the PRIMARY readiness check after create_workload/update_workload: poll it (without location) until ready, then report the canonical endpoint as the public URL — never construct a URL by hand. Without location: every location with readiness, endpoints, and the canonical URL. With location: that single deployment in full detail — version chain, per-container readiness/restarts/messages, full JSON. For cron workloads, per-execution run history lives in status.jobExecutions of that per-location detail. Pair with get_workload_events and get_workload_logs to diagnose failures.

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.
locationNoOPTIONAL. A workload has one deployment per location it runs in. Omit for readiness across ALL locations plus the canonical public URL. Pass a location (e.g. "aws-us-east-1") for that single deployment's full detail — version chain, per-container readiness, and full JSON.
workloadYesWorkload whose deployments to inspect.

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?

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations: it explains the difference between omitting vs. specifying 'location', the presence of version chain and per-container readiness/restarts/messages in the full detail, and the status.jobExecutions location for cron workloads. It also warns against constructing URLs manually, which is not inferable from 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 dense yet well-organized: purpose → usage pattern → parameter behavior → cron edge case → related tools. Every sentence contributes unique value with no redundancy or filler.

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 description fully contextualizes the tool within the workload lifecycle: it explains readiness polling, when to use with/without location, special cron handling, and how to combine with events/logs for diagnostics. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be exhaustively described.

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 schema already covers all parameter descriptions at 100%, but the description adds key semantic nuance for the 'location' parameter (omit for all locations + canonical URL, pass a location for single deployment detail) and clarifies the use of org/gvc/workload. This exceeds the baseline for a fully-documented schema.

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 defines the tool as listing a workload's per-location rollout status, and explicitly distinguishes it from diagnostic tools like get_workload_events and get_workload_logs. It also positions it as the primary readiness check after create_workload/update_workload, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: poll after create/update until ready, use without 'location' for all-location readiness, and pair with get_workload_events/get_workload_logs for failure diagnosis. It also tells the agent to report the canonical endpoint as the public URL and never hand-construct it.

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