Tessryx

Create dynamic endpoint

create_dynamic_endpoint

Dynamic endpoint authoring — create a BRAND-NEW dynamic endpoint (mints the endpoint + its version 1). The definition binds the endpoint to a workflow (by versioned-slug reference) plus a cache setting; fetch its JSON Schema with get_dynamic_endpoint_definition_schema and author against it. Pass publish=true to take the endpoint live in one step, or publish later with publish_dynamic_endpoint. (To add a version to a dynamic endpoint that already exists, use create_dynamic_endpoint_version.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	Yes	URL-safe slug; becomes the path on the tenant's subdomain in the public URL (https://<tenant>.tessryx.app/<slug>). Segments are lowercase letters/numbers/hyphens/dots, or :param placeholders. Dots let you serve spec-mandated files at their exact paths — 'robots.txt', 'sitemap.xml', 'favicon.ico', '.well-known/security.txt'. :param segments do path-parameter routing, e.g. 'post/:slug' serves every /post/<value> from one endpoint — pair it with the definition's input_transform to turn params into the workflow $input (the workflow's input_schema then validates, so a bad URL returns 404). A segment may not be '.' or '..'.
`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 Defaults to false; omit to leave the version as an unpublished draft.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 dynamic endpoint definition, as a JSON object. Fetch the exact JSON Schema it must satisfy with get_dynamic_endpoint_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 this endpoint serves.
`content_type`	No	The response Content-Type this endpoint serves (e.g. text/html, application/json). When set, it is authoritative — set text/html here for a page so it isn't served as text/plain. Leave blank to use whatever content-type the workflow returns.
`display_name`	No	Human-readable name.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`slug`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`published`	Yes
`public_url`	No
`endpoint_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the burden of disclosing side effects. It does so effectively: the call mints both the endpoint and its version 1, and the publish=true vs. unpublished-draft behavior is clearly stated. No description contradicts the annotations, so no contradiction flag. It stops short of disclosing prerequisites or reversibility, but the core behavioral surface is covered.

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?

Four sentences, each earning its place: core action, definition-authoring guidance, publish semantics, and sibling routing. The most decision-relevant fact (brand-new vs. version-add) is front-loaded, and there is zero filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Given that an output schema exists (return values covered), the input schema is 100% documented, and the description covers the publish workflow, authoring flow, and sibling differentiation, the tool is nearly complete for an agent to invoke correctly. The only gap is unstated prerequisites — e.g., whether the referenced workflow version must already exist or be published before this call succeeds.

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% and the schema itself is unusually rich (slug's path-routing, :param placeholders, 404 semantics, authoritative content_type). The description still adds value beyond it by revealing the definition's internal content — binding to a workflow by versioned-slug reference plus a cache setting — which the schema does not state. The publish flag's one-step meaning is also reinforced.

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 leads with a specific verb and resource: 'create a BRAND-NEW dynamic endpoint (mints the endpoint + its version 1)'. It precisely scopes the operation as creating a new endpoint, which distinguishes it from dozens of create_* siblings, and the parenthetical clarifies it also mints version 1. This is far more specific than the title alone.

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 the alternative: 'To add a version to a dynamic endpoint that already exists, use create_dynamic_endpoint_version.' It also distinguishes the publish path (publish=true now vs. publish_dynamic_endpoint later) and directs the agent to get_dynamic_endpoint_definition_schema for authoring. When-to-use and when-not-to-use are both explicit, which is essential given 70+ sibling tools.

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?