Skip to main content
Glama

Tessryx

by io.tessryx

List custom domains

list_custom_domains
Read-only

List the custom domains claimed by the authenticated tenant. A custom domain serves the tenant's dynamic endpoints on the customer's own hostname (shop.customer.com) instead of the default .tessryx.app/ URL. Optionally filter by lifecycle status (PENDING, VERIFIED, CERT_PENDING, ACTIVE).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
statusNoonly return domains in this lifecycle status: PENDING, VERIFIED, CERT_PENDING, or ACTIVE; omit for all
page_sizeNomaximum number of domains to return in this page
page_tokenNotoken from a previous response's next_page_token to fetch the next page

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
domainsYes
next_page_tokenYes

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 behavior beyond that: it explains what a custom domain is, how it replaces the default URL pattern, and that results can be filtered by lifecycle status. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three sentences, each earning its place: the core listing statement, the contextual explanation of what a custom domain is, and the optional filter. No redundant wording or filler, with the key purpose front-loaded.

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 list tool with an output schema and fully described parameters, the description is complete. It covers the resource concept, the tenant scoping, and the optional status filter. Pagination and return values are already handled by the input schema and output schema.

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 all three parameters well. The description repeats the status filter information but adds no new meaning for page_size or page_token. This matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'List the custom domains claimed by the authenticated tenant.' It then adds useful domain-specific context about serving dynamic endpoints on a custom hostname. This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling domain tools like get_custom_domain, create_custom_domain, and verify_custom_domain.

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?

The description establishes clear context: it lists domains belonging to the authenticated tenant and optionally filters by lifecycle status. It implies read-only listing without explicitly naming alternatives such as get_custom_domain for a single domain or verify_custom_domain for verification, but the usage is self-evident for a list operation.

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