Skip to main content
Glama

Tessryx

by io.tessryx

Get workflow version

get_workflow_version
Read-only

Read back the full stored definition of a workflow version by slug or id. Returns the exact definition body that was authored (as a JSON string, so you can parse it to diff or patch and resubmit as a new version) plus its content_sha256. Omit version to get the latest version.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugNothe workflow slug (provide this or workflow_id)
versionNospecific version to fetch; omit (0) for the latest version
workflow_idNothe workflow id (provide this or slug)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
versionYes
definitionYes
content_sha256Yes

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavior: it returns the definition body as a JSON string plus content_sha256, and describes the latest-version fallback. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 tight sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, the return format and use case are explained, and the version behavior is stated 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?

For a read-only lookup tool with an output schema, this description is complete. It covers how to identify the version, what the response contains, and why an agent would use it. Nothing necessary for correct invocation is missing.

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 slug, workflow_id, and version. The description adds the alternate 'by slug or id' framing and repeats the 'omit version for latest' behavior, but these are already present in the schema. No additional parameter meaning beyond that is introduced.

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: 'Read back the full stored definition of a workflow version by slug or id.' It clearly distinguishes this from related tools like get_workflow or get_workflow_definition_schema by focusing on the stored version definition plus content hash.

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?

Provides clear context: use it to retrieve the exact authored definition for diffing, patching, or resubmitting as a new version. It also explains the version selection rule ('Omit version to get the latest version'), though it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Tessryx toolsInspect
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