Tessryx

List apps

list_apps

Read-only

List the apps belonging to the authenticated tenant. An APP is the foremost organizing container — a versioned, publishable grouping of resources (schemas, datafiles, api templates, workflows, dynamic endpoints, schedules) that share a slug-folder prefix, e.g. everything under 'storefront/'. When building a new page or a shared-API bundle, work inside an app: pick its slug prefix, then author each resource under that prefix so it is captured automatically. Returns summaries; fetch one with get_app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page_size`	No	maximum number of apps to return in this page
`page_token`	No	token from a previous response's next_page_token to fetch the next page
`slug_prefix`	No	only return apps whose slug starts with this prefix

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`apps`	Yes
`next_page_token`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint true and destructiveHint false, which aligns with the list operation. The description adds behavioral context by indicating that it returns summaries and points to get_app for full details, which is useful without contradicting the annotations.

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 relatively concise with two sentences, but the second sentence includes a lengthy explanation about app organization. This is relevant context but could be slightly trimmed. Overall, it is efficient and front-loads the primary purpose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the essential context: the scope (authenticated tenant), the nature of apps (versioned groupings of resources), the output (summaries), and a follow-up action (get_app). Pagination is not mentioned but is handled by the schema, so the description is sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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 schema has 100% description coverage for all three optional parameters (page_size, page_token, slug_prefix) and the descriptions are self-explanatory. The tool description does not add extra parameter semantics, so it remains at the baseline for high schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'apps belonging to the authenticated tenant.' It also distinguishes the tool's summary output from a single get_app call, which helps clarify its purpose. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from other listing tools like list_app_versions.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides some usage context by explaining what an app is and noting that it returns summaries for subsequent get_app calls. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the sibling list includes similar listing tools, so more explicit guidance would have been helpful.

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?