Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

List Organization Quotas

list_quotas
Read-onlyIdempotent

List quotas for an organization (per-org Control Plane resource limits). Each entry includes current usage, max, unit, and any dimensions. Set nearLimit=true to filter to quotas currently using ≥80% of their max — use this as a quick "what is about to break?" check before provisioning. Read-only — to raise a quota, request an increase by pinging Control Plane on Slack or emailing support@controlplane.com.

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.
limitNoMaximum number of items to return (1-500, default: all).
nearLimitNoFilter to quotas currently using ≥80% of their maximum. Useful as a quick "what is about to exhaust?" check.

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=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description confirms 'Read-only'. It adds useful context about the response format ('Each entry includes current usage, max, unit, and any dimensions') and the ≥80% nearLimit threshold, which goes beyond annotation coverage.

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 front-load the primary purpose, then provide a concrete filter use case and an escalation path. There is no filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes to agent understanding.

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?

This is a simple tool with full annotations, a complete schema, and an output schema. The description covers the key use case (pre-provisioning check), response contents, and the alternative action for quota increases, leaving no significant gaps.

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%, and the schema itself robustly documents all three parameters, including org's 'NEVER guess' guidance. The tool description adds no new parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with 'List quotas for an organization (per-org Control Plane resource limits)', providing a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like list_resources or list_metrics.

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 explicitly frames the nearLimit=true filter as a 'what is about to break?' check to run before provisioning. It also provides a clear when-not: 'Read-only — to raise a quota, request an increase by pinging Control Plane on Slack or emailing support@controlplane.com'.

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