Tessryx

Get workflow

get_workflow

Read-only

Get a single workflow by slug or id, including the definition body of its current version (published if any, else latest) and its latest/last-published version numbers. Use get_workflow_version to read a specific older version.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	No	the workflow slug (provide this or workflow_id)
`workflow_id`	No	the workflow id (provide this or slug)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slug`	Yes
`version`	No
`definition`	No
`description`	Yes
`workflow_id`	Yes
`display_name`	Yes
`latest_version`	Yes
`last_published_version`	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?

Annotations already indicate read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds useful behavioral context about what is returned (current version, definition body, version numbers), going beyond the basic annotation coverage.

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?

Two concise sentences efficiently convey the tool's purpose, scope, and alternative, with no redundant or fluff content.

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 provides sufficient context for a get operation, including what is returned and when to use an alternative. It is complete for an agent to decide when and how to invoke the 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?

The input schema already describes each parameter and their exclusivity. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so it meets but does not exceed the baseline.

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 action (get) and resource (workflow), and specifies it retrieves the current version with definition body and version numbers. It also distinguishes itself from get_workflow_version, making its purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly instructs to use get_workflow_version for specific older versions, providing clear guidance on when not to use this tool and when to use the alternative.

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?