Control Plane

List Resources of a Kind

list_resources

Read-onlyIdempotent

List Control Plane resources of one kind as a summary table. The single read-list tool for every resource kind — pass kind (e.g. "workload", "secret", "gvc"), org, and gvc for GVC-scoped kinds. For a single item's full JSON use get_resource. Workload deployments are not a kind here — use list_deployments.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`gvc`	No	GVC slug — REQUIRED only for GVC-scoped kinds (workload, identity, volumeset); ignored otherwise.
`org`	Yes	Organization 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.
`kind`	Yes	Resource kind to list. One of: workload, identity, volumeset, gvc, secret, policy, group, domain, cloudaccount, agent, ipset, mk8s, serviceaccount, auditctx, image, location, user.
`limit`	No	Maximum number of items to return (1-500, default: all).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`ok`	Yes	Whether the call succeeded.
`data`	No	The full machine-readable result — list rows, the resource object, query results. Read THIS, not just the summary.
`summary`	Yes	One-line summary of the result.
`nextSteps`	No	Recommended 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?

While annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: it returns a summary table (not full JSON), and it clarifies that workload deployments are excluded. This goes beyond the annotations, though it stops short of describing pagination or default limits, which are partially covered by the schema.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence earns its place: function, usage pattern, and alternative tools. No redundant or filler content.

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 tool has a rich schema, annotations, output schema, and many siblings. The description covers the tool's role, required inputs, GVC-scoping nuance, and key alternatives. With the output schema handling return-value details, nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions the key parameters (kind, org, gvc) and provides examples, but this largely mirrors what the schema already documents. It does not add new semantic details about format or behavior beyond the schema, so it stays at 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 clearly states the tool lists Control Plane resources of one kind as a summary table, using the specific verb 'list' and identifying the resource type. It distinguishes itself from get_resource (full JSON) and list_deployments (deployments are not a kind), making its scope unambiguous.

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 positions this as 'the single read-list tool for every resource kind' and provides concrete usage instructions (pass kind, org, and gvc for GVC-scoped kinds). It also names alternatives: get_resource for a single item's full JSON and list_deployments for workload deployments, offering clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Control Plane tools Inspect

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).