Tessryx

Get resource graph

get_resource_graph

Read-onlyIdempotent

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

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

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.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: depended_on_by is transitive and not depth-limited while depends_on follows depth hops, edges carry authored vs. resolved version text so drift is visible, and unscanned_kinds means an empty reverse result does NOT imply no dependents. That last caveat is exactly the kind of non-obvious behavioral context the description should carry.

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 purpose is front-loaded and every sentence carries information (direction semantics, version drift, unscanned_kinds caveat, alternative tool). It is dense and long-ish for a graph tool, but there is no filler; a slightly tighter phrasing of the edge-metadata sentence would earn a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-format explanation is unnecessary, and the description still covers the two things an agent most needs that structure cannot convey: the asymmetry between the two directions and the unscanned_kinds false-empty trap. Nothing required to call it correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description meaningfully extends the parameters: it explains what each direction semantically returns, frames depth as a browsing control versus analyze_resource following chains to the end, and notes version-suffix resolution for the resource slug. It stops short of restating kinds, but the value added over the schema is real.

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 names a specific action (browse how resources connect) and a specific resource (resource graph), and explicitly distinguishes two traversal directions. It also names the sibling it is not (analyze_resource), so an agent can separate this from the other get_* tools without opening the 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: call depended_on_by before a delete or a breaking edit, and use analyze_resource instead when the question is whether something is broken rather than what it connects to. Both the positive case and the alternative are stated.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?