Tessryx

Create custom domain

create_custom_domain

Claim a custom hostname for this tenant and generate its DNS challenge. The claim alone grants NOTHING until ownership is proven — it returns TWO DNS records (an ownership TXT and a permanent routing CNAME) in dns_records that the customer must add at their DNS provider. Present those records to the human, wait for them to add them, then call verify_custom_domain. slug_prefix/root_endpoint are optional here and are usually set later with update_custom_domain (after the domain verifies).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hostname`	Yes	The customer's fully-qualified hostname, e.g. shop.customer.com. Immutable — it is the domain's identity.
`slug_prefix`	No	Optional. The endpoint subtree this domain mounts (an isolation boundary). Usually the slug prefix of the app this domain should front. Can be set later with update_custom_domain.
`display_name`	No	Optional human label, e.g. 'Marketing site'.
`root_endpoint`	No	Optional. What the domain root ('/') serves, RELATIVE to slug_prefix. Can be set later with update_custom_domain.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`hostname`	Yes
`dns_records`	No
`slug_prefix`	No
`verified_at`	No
`activated_at`	No
`display_name`	No
`root_endpoint`	No
`last_check_message`	No
`cert_status_message`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral context far beyond the sparse annotations: that the claim alone grants nothing, that ownership must be proven, and that two DNS records are returned for the customer to add. This prevents an agent from assuming the domain is immediately active.

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 front-loaded with the primary action and the critical caveat, then moves into the customer-facing flow, then the parameter lifecycle note. Every sentence earns its place and none is wasted.

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?

For a tool with one required parameter, high schema coverage, an output schema, and a clear stateful flow, the description covers the essential workflow: what the claim produces, what the customer must do, and what to call next. The presence of an output schema means return-value details do not need to be repeated.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful lifecycle context for slug_prefix and root_endpoint, noting they are optional here and usually set later with update_custom_domain, which is beyond the schema's static property descriptions.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Claim a custom hostname for this tenant and generate its DNS challenge.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from verify_custom_domain and update_custom_domain by framing the action as a claim, not a completed setup.

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 explicitly names verify_custom_domain as the next step after DNS records are added by the customer, and update_custom_domain as the tool for setting slug_prefix/root_endpoint after verification. This gives the agent a clear when-to-use and sequencing rule versus alternatives.

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?