Skip to main content
Glama

smart_deploy

Deploy Ludus cyber range scenarios with automated validation, snapshot creation, and monitoring guidance to ensure reliable security testing environments.

Instructions

Smart deployment with validation, optional snapshot, and auto-monitoring.

RECOMMENDED: This is the preferred method for deploying scenarios as it includes validation, error checking, and monitoring guidance.

NO FILE UPLOAD REQUIRED: This tool automatically generates the configuration from the scenario parameters. You do NOT need to provide a config file.

Workflow:

  1. Validates the scenario configuration (if auto_validate=True)

  2. Creates snapshot if requested (if auto_snapshot=True)

  3. Generates and sets the configuration in Ludus

  4. Verifies the configuration was set correctly

  5. Starts the deployment

  6. Provides monitoring guidance and commands

When to use:

  • Use smart_deploy() for most deployments (recommended)

  • Use deploy_scenario() if you need more control or don't want validation

  • Use deploy_range() only if you have a custom configuration dict

Args: scenario_key: Scenario to deploy (e.g., 'redteam-lab-lite') siem_type: SIEM type to include (wazuh, splunk, elastic, security-onion, none) auto_validate: Validate configuration before deploying (default: True) auto_snapshot: Create snapshot before deployment (default: False) auto_monitor: Enable auto-monitoring after deployment (default: True) user_id: Optional user ID (admin only)

Returns: Smart deployment result with monitoring guidance and status

Example: # Recommended: Use smart_deploy for automated deployments smart_deploy( scenario_key='redteam-lab-lite', siem_type='none', auto_validate=True, auto_monitor=True )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scenario_keyYes
siem_typeNowazuh
auto_validateNo
auto_snapshotNo
auto_monitorNo
user_idNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by detailing the 6-step workflow, noting 'NO FILE UPLOAD REQUIRED', and explaining what each boolean parameter controls. It doesn't mention rate limits, permissions beyond 'admin only' for user_id, or error handling specifics, but provides substantial behavioral context.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (description, workflow, when to use, args, returns, example), but slightly verbose. The workflow list could be more concise, and some repetition exists (e.g., 'recommended' appears multiple times). Overall efficient but not maximally tight.

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 complex deployment tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, but with output schema, the description is quite complete. It covers purpose, usage, workflow, parameters, and includes an example. It doesn't detail return structure (relying on output schema) or error cases, but provides comprehensive guidance for correct use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by explaining all 6 parameters in the 'Args' section, including default values, examples (scenario_key), and special notes (user_id is 'admin only'). This adds significant meaning beyond the bare 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 states the tool performs 'smart deployment with validation, optional snapshot, and auto-monitoring' and specifies it's for deploying scenarios. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly contrasting with deploy_scenario() and deploy_range() in the 'When to use' section.

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 guidance: 'Use smart_deploy() for most deployments (recommended)', 'Use deploy_scenario() if you need more control or don't want validation', and 'Use deploy_range() only if you have a custom configuration dict'. This clearly defines when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/tjnull/Ludus-FastMCP'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server