Skip to main content
Glama

Control Plane

by io.cpln

Update a Policy

update_policy
DestructiveIdempotent

Update a policy: metadata (description, tags), target scope (targetAll / targetLinks / removeTargetLinks / targetQuery / removeTargetQuery), and bindings (addBindings merges by permission set; removeBindings strips principals from matching bindings). Optimistic concurrency uses version/id from the current state. Call get_resource (kind="policy") first to capture state.

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.
nameYesResource name (lowercase kebab-case, starts with a letter, 2-64 chars). Names are IMMUTABLE — renaming = delete + recreate (loses URL, DNS, policy links).
tagsNoAdd or update tags without replacing the full set. Submit an empty list to clear all tags.
targetAllNoWhen true sets target="all" and clears targetLinks (exclusive with targetLinks/removeTargetLinks).
addBindingsNoBindings to merge in. Matching permission sets merge principalLinks; otherwise a new binding is appended.
descriptionNoNew description for the policy.
targetLinksNoReplace the targetLinks list with this exact set. Use removeTargetLinks for incremental removal.
targetQueryNoReplace the dynamic target query (resources matching it are targeted).
removeTagKeysNoTag keys to remove from the resource.
removeBindingsNoBindings to remove. Each item is { permissions: string[], principalLinks: string[] }; matching permission/principal pairs are stripped and empty bindings are removed.
removeTargetLinksNoRemove these targetLinks from the existing list (mutually exclusive with full-replacement targetLinks).
removeTargetQueryNotrue deletes targetQuery; a stale query keeps granting on every matched resource, additively to 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive and idempotent behavior; the description adds important nuance by explaining that addBindings merges by permission set, removeBindings strips principals, and optimistic concurrency depends on the current version/id. No contradiction with annotations, and the added behavior details go beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 main purpose, and uses compact category lists to avoid redundancy. Every sentence earns its place, including the final call-to-action about get_resource.

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?

For a tool with 12 parameters, nested schemas, and an output schema, the description covers the key operational context: what can be updated, merge/strip behavior, and the required prerequisite call to get_resource. It does not explain every destructive edge case, but the input schema handles those details, so the description is sufficient.

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 has 100% description coverage, so the parameter semantics baseline is high. The description adds value by grouping the 12 parameters into three concerns — metadata, target scope, and bindings — and by highlighting the merge/strip behavior for bindings. It reinforces the schema without needing to restate every field detail.

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 it updates a policy and enumerates exactly what can be updated: metadata, target scope, and bindings, including merge/strip semantics. This goes beyond a simple verb+resource and helps distinguish update_policy from create_policy or get_resource.

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 gives an explicit usage precondition: call get_resource (kind="policy") first to capture the current state for optimistic concurrency. It does not explicitly say when not to use this tool or mention alternatives like create_policy, so it falls short of a 5, but the context provided is clear and actionable.

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