Tessryx

Create schedule version

create_schedule_version

Schedule versioning — add a new version to an EXISTING schedule (by schedule_id) to change its cron, timezone, workflow, or input. Author the new version's definition against the schema from get_schedule_definition_schema. Pass publish=true to activate this version immediately. (For a brand-new schedule, use create_schedule.)

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 Defaults to false; omit to leave the version as an unpublished draft.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 schedule definition, as a JSON object. Fetch the exact JSON Schema it must satisfy with get_schedule_definition_schema and author against it (or copy an existing one with the get_*_version tool). The owning service validates it on submit.
`schedule_id`	Yes	The schedule id to add a version to.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`published`	Yes
`schedule_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?

Annotations only indicate openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It transparently states the additive nature ('add a new version'), the publish=true activation behavior, and that the service validates the definition. It does not detail what happens to previously published versions, but this is adequately implied by the versioning model.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and contains no filler. Every sentence adds value: purpose, definition authoring, publish behavior, and sibling differentiation are all covered efficiently.

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?

The description, combined with a fully documented input schema and an output schema, gives the agent everything needed to call this tool correctly. It covers what to pass, how to construct the definition, the publish option, and when to use a different tool.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter-level context: publish=true activates immediately, and the definition must be authored against get_schedule_definition_schema. This goes beyond what the schema alone states and helps the agent construct a valid call.

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 operation: adding a new version to an existing schedule by schedule_id. It names the specific resource and explicitly contrasts itself with create_schedule for brand-new schedules, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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?

It explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool (existing schedule) and when to use the alternative (brand-new schedule → create_schedule). It also provides concrete direction to fetch the definition schema before authoring, which is actionable usage guidance.

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?