Tessryx

Create API template

create_api_template

Api template authoring — create a BRAND-NEW api template (mints the template + its version 1). Fetch the definition's JSON Schema with get_api_template_definition_schema and author against it. Iterate with execute_api_template before wiring the template into a workflow; pass publish=true to publish in the same step once you're happy. (To add a version to an api template that already exists, use create_api_template_version.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	URL-safe slug, optionally hierarchical.
`publish`	No	If true, immediately publish the version this call creates (the common create-then-publish in one step). Defaults to false; omit to leave the version as an unpublished draft.
`definition`	Yes	The api template definition, as a JSON object. Fetch the exact JSON Schema it must satisfy with get_api_template_definition_schema and author against it (or copy an existing one with the get_*_version tool). The owning service validates it on submit.
`description`	No	What external call this template makes.
`display_name`	No	Human-readable name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`published`	Yes
`template_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With only openWorldHint and destructiveHint annotations, the description carries most of the behavioral burden and handles it well: it discloses that this operation mints a new template plus version 1, that publish=true publishes in the same step, and that iteration should happen before wiring into a workflow. It could more explicitly state the unpublised-draft default, though the schema already covers that.

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's core purpose, then proceeds through the essential workflow and the key sibling distinction. Every sentence earns its place, and the parenthetical alternative is cleanly separated.

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?

Given the rich input schema, output schema, and focused workflow guidance, the description is complete enough for correct tool selection and invocation. It covers prerequisites, iteration, publishing behavior, and the main alternative tool without requiring the agent to infer the critical steps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the parameters. The description adds useful semantics beyond the schema by explaining that the definition must be authored against get_api_template_definition_schema, that execute_api_template is the iteration path, and that publish=true collapses create-then-publish into one step.

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 states a specific verb ('create') and a specific resource ('a BRAND-NEW api template') and clarifies it mints the template plus its version 1. It distinguishes itself from create_api_template_version by explicitly saying that tool is for adding versions to existing templates.

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 gives a clear creation workflow: fetch the JSON Schema, author the definition, iterate with execute_api_template, publish with publish=true. It also names the exact alternative for appending versions to existing templates, so the agent knows when not to use this tool.

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

All Tessryx 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

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Every resource family follows the same verb+noun pattern and each tool name uniquely identifies a resource-action pair (create_app vs create_app_version vs update_app vs publish_app). Closest overlaps like analyze_resource vs get_resource_graph and patch_datafile vs update_datafile are explicitly differentiated by their descriptions, so misselection risk is low despite the scale.

Naming Consistency5/5

Names are almost uniformly verb_noun snake_case with a consistent lifecycle vocabulary: create/get/update/delete/list/publish/unpublish/version. Minor outliers like whoami and run_schedule_now are idiomatic and do not break the predictability of the set.

Tool Count1/5

At 93 tools this far exceeds the calibration's 50+ extreme-mismatch case. The count is inflated by repeating create/get/update/delete/version/publish/unpublish across ten resource families; even though each family is systematic, the combined surface is very hard for an agent to navigate and keep in context.

Completeness4/5

Core CRUD/publish/version lifecycles are present for apps, workflows, endpoints, schedules, schemas, datafiles, and api templates, and dependency analysis is well covered. However, secret creation/updating, asset upload, custom-domain deletion, and version-range enumeration for several resource types are absent or left to the external dashboard, so agents hit a few manual dead ends.

Resources

Need Help?