Tessryx

List assets

list_assets

Read-only

List the binary assets (images, files) this tenant has published to the media CDN, with each asset's absolute URL. Supports a slug-prefix browse and pagination. Assets are produced by a workflow's asset block; use this to see what has already been published and to get an asset's URL to embed in a page. If the image or file you need is not here, send the user to https://tessryx.io/dashboard/media to upload it — you cannot upload a binary the user has not given you.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page_size`	No	maximum number of assets 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 assets whose slug starts with this prefix (hierarchical browse, e.g. 'products/hero')
`exact_slug_prefix`	No	if true, only return assets directly under slug_prefix (not deeper descendants)
`include_level_prefixes`	No	if true, also return the child folder prefixes at the current level

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`assets`	Yes
`next_page_token`	No
`current_level_prefixes`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description is consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation and adds transparency by explicitly stating that uploading is not possible ('you cannot upload a binary the user has not given you'). This gives agents a clear understanding of the tool's limitations beyond the annotation alone.

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?

The description is compact, with no redundant information. It efficiently combines the primary purpose, usage examples, and a graceful fallback instruction in just a few sentences. The structure is logical and easy to parse.

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 that an output schema is present, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior, usage context, and limitations. It provides all necessary information for an agent to decide when and how to use it, without needing to infer anything critical.

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?

All five parameters have detailed, meaningful descriptions in the schema. The descriptions explain hierarchical browsing, pagination tokens, and the exact behavior of boolean flags, providing clear semantics beyond mere parameter names. Since schema coverage is 100% and the descriptions are highly informative, this exceeds 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 (List), the resource (binary assets), and the scope (published to the media CDN for this tenant). It also mentions key capabilities like slug-prefix browse and pagination, making the 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?

It provides explicit usage guidance: 'use this to see what has already been published and to get an asset's URL to embed in a page'. It also gives a clear alternative when the desired asset is not present, directing users to upload via a URL, which is actionable and reduces ambiguity.

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?