Tessryx

Execute API template

execute_api_template

Execute an api template live against the given variables and return the full trace: the rendered request (method, url, headers, body) and the response (status, headers, body, duration). Use this to debug a template before wiring it into a workflow. This runs the real outbound request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No	the template slug to execute (provide this or template_id)
`version`	No	specific version to execute; omit for the published version
`variables`	No	values bound to the template's variables for this execution
`template_id`	No	the template id to execute (provide this or slug)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`duration_ms`	Yes
`request_url`	Yes
`status_code`	Yes
`request_body`	Yes
`response_body`	Yes
`request_method`	Yes
`request_headers`	Yes
`response_headers`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description adds important behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating 'This runs the real outbound request.' This warns the agent that executing the template has live side effects, which is not obvious from destructiveHint=false alone. It also clarifies that this is a live execution, not a preview or simulation.

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 three sentences with no filler: it opens with the core action and output, then gives the use case, then states the critical caveat. Every sentence earns its place.

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 output schema exists, the description only needs to convey purpose, use case, and behavioral caveats—all of which are present. It covers the live request nature, the trace output, and the workflow-debugging context. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to decide when and how to use this tool.

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 schema already documents all four parameters and their meanings. The description mentions 'variables' and 'debug a template' but does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 action ('Execute an api template live'), the resource ('against the given variables'), and the exact output ('full trace: rendered request... response...'). It clearly identifies this as a debug/execution tool, distinguishing it from the many get/update/publish siblings.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly says when to use it: 'Use this to debug a template before wiring it into a workflow.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, but the workflow-context guidance gives clear situational direction.

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?