Tessryx

Get resource graph

get_resource_graph

Read-only

Browse how resources connect, in either direction. direction 'depends_on' (default) shows what this resource NEEDS, following 'depth' hops (default 3). direction 'depended_on_by' shows what would BREAK if you changed or deleted it — transitive and not depth-limited, since the chain (api template → the workflows calling it → the endpoints running those) is the answer; use it before a delete or a breaking edit. Each edge carries the reference text as authored, whether it names @published or @latest, and what that resolves to right now, so version drift is visible and not just connectivity. Check unscanned_kinds on a reverse result: a schema's referrers include every datafile and are too expensive to enumerate, so an empty answer there does NOT mean nothing depends on it. To find out whether something is broken rather than what it connects to, use analyze_resource.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	Yes	the kind of resource to start from: workflow, dynamic_endpoint, api_template, datafile, schema, schedule, secret, custom_domain
`depth`	No	how many hops to follow (default 3). This is a browsing control for looking around; analyze_resource always follows chains to the end rather than stopping at a depth
`resource`	Yes	slug of the resource, optionally with a version suffix (e.g. 'blog/render' or 'blog/render@latest'); a bare slug means @published. For a custom_domain this is the hostname
`direction`	No	which way to walk: 'depends_on' (default — what this resource needs) or 'depended_on_by' (what would break if you changed or deleted it). depended_on_by is transitive: deleting an api template surfaces the workflows that call it AND the endpoints that run those workflows

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`root`	Yes
`edges`	Yes
`nodes`	Yes
`truncated`	No
`depth_exceeded`	No
`scan_truncated`	No
`unscanned_kinds`	No
`aggregate_referrers`	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?

Annotations already flag the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: transitive traversal, depth limits, version drift visibility, and the unscanned_kinds caveat about empty reverse results. No contradiction exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence adds operational detail; defaults are front-loaded and alternatives are named early. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary, with minor redundancy with the schema's transitivity note, but remains well-organized and scannable.

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 an output schema exists and all parameters are documented, the description covers the non-obvious runtime behaviors an agent needs: default direction and depth, transitive reverse traversal, version resolution, and the false-empty caveat for schemas. Nothing critical is missing.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: bare slugs mean @published, custom_domain expects a hostname, depth is only a browsing control, and depended_on_by is transitive. This materially improves the agent's ability to choose correct parameter values.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Browse how resources connect, in either direction.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling get_* tools by describing graph traversal semantics and explicitly naming analyze_resource as the alternative for diagnosing breakage.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use 'depended_on_by' before a delete or breaking edit, and use analyze_resource instead when the question is whether something is broken. This gives an agent concrete decision rules rather than leaving usage to inference.

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?