Tessryx

Create dynamic endpoint version

create_dynamic_endpoint_version

Dynamic endpoint versioning — add a new version to an EXISTING dynamic endpoint (by endpoint_id) to evolve a dynamic endpoint you already created. Author the new version's definition against the schema from get_dynamic_endpoint_definition_schema. Pass publish=true to take this dynamic endpoint version live immediately. (For a brand-new dynamic endpoint, use create_dynamic_endpoint.)

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`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 Defaults to false; omit to leave the version as an unpublished draft.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.
`endpoint_id`	Yes	The endpoint id to add a version to.

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations declare openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but do not establish that this is a mutating operation. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it creates a new version on an existing endpoint, and that publish=true takes the version live immediately. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey, though it does not discuss draft lifecycle details beyond implication.

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: it opens with the core operation, then covers the authoring source, publish behavior, and the key sibling exclusion in four short sentences. Every sentence carries useful operational guidance with no filler.

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 presence, and annotations, the description covers the remaining contextual needs: distinguishing existing vs. new endpoint creation, pointing to the definition schema, and explaining the publish path. Nothing operationally critical is missing for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the publish=true purpose and points to the definition schema tool, but most of the actual parameter meaning is already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds only marginal value for parameter understanding.

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 precise action: 'add a new version to an EXISTING dynamic endpoint (by endpoint_id)' to evolve an existing endpoint. It explicitly contrasts with create_dynamic_endpoint for brand-new endpoints, so an agent can disambiguate from the sibling tool without opening its schema.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: use this when the dynamic endpoint already exists, and explicitly names the alternative for new endpoints ('For a brand-new dynamic endpoint, use create_dynamic_endpoint.'). It also tells the agent to author definitions against get_dynamic_endpoint_definition_schema and explains the publish=true shortcut.

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?