Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
rancher-mcp-server

rancher-mcp-server

by flaviagaia
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

scale_workload

Scale a workload in a Rancher project to a specified number of replicas, respecting a configurable maximum limit.

Instructions

Scale a workload to N replicas. Requires RANCHER_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE=true. Capped by RANCHER_MCP_MAX_REPLICAS (default 20).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "workload_id": "<workload_id>",
      "replicas": "<replicas>"
    },
    "name": "scale_workload"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
replicasYes
project_idYes
workload_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses that scaling is a write operation (via the require flag) and is subject to a cap. This provides essential behavioral context for safe agent use.

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?

Two sentences, each delivering distinct value: core action first, constraints second. No redundant or vague language.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main operation and constraints but omits guidance on how to obtain project_id and workload_id, and does not mention the output shape. The presence of an output schema reduces the burden somewhat, but for a 3-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, more detail is expected.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. Only the 'replicas' parameter is vaguely described ('to N replicas'), while 'project_id' and 'workload_id' receive no explanation. The agent must infer their purpose from the tool name.

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 action ('Scale'), the resource ('a workload'), and the quantity ('to N replicas'). This distinguishes it well from sibling tools like list_workloads and redeploy_workload.

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 explicitly requires RANCHER_MCP_ALLOW_WRITE=true, indicating when this tool is usable. The cap by RANCHER_MCP_MAX_REPLICAS provides constraints. However, it does not contrast with alternatives like redeploy_workload or advise when not to use.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools