Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

List Workload Replicas

list_workload_replicas
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the names of the running replicas (pods) of a workload in a location. Read-only operational inventory for confirming which replicas are currently serving. 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.
limitNoMaximum number of items to return (1-500, default: all).
locationNoGVC location / deployment name. Default: the GVC's first location.
workloadYesWorkload whose running replicas to list.

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a bit of context by clarifying it deals with 'running replicas' and being an 'operational inventory', but it does not disclose additional behavioral details such as pagination, authentication requirements, or rate limits. With strong annotations, a score of 3 is appropriate.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences long, front-loading the purpose in the first sentence and adding useful context (operational inventory, runbook recommendation) afterward. It is concise and well-structured, though the runbook sentence is somewhat ancillary to the tool's immediate purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has an output schema, so return values do not need explanation. The description covers the purpose, scope, and a recommended prerequisite (the runbook). With 5 params fully documented in the schema, this is reasonably complete for a read-only list tool, though it could perhaps mention the default location behavior explicitly.

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 rich descriptions for each parameter (e.g., 'NEVER guess' for org, guidance on gvc). The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters, relying on the schema to carry that weight. Given the high coverage, this meets the baseline of 3.

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 identifies the action ('List the names of the running replicas (pods) of a workload in a location') with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like list_deployments or get_workload_logs by focusing on the inventory of running pods, which is a distinct operational concern.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description states a clear use case ('Read-only operational inventory for confirming which replicas are currently serving'), providing context for when to use the tool. It also recommends a runbook before first use. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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