Tessryx

List datafiles

list_datafiles

Read-only

List the datafiles belonging to the authenticated tenant. A datafile is a published JSON object served from a CDN — the data layer a page can fetch and hydrate from.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page_size`	No	maximum number of datafiles 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 datafiles under this FOLDER path (matched on whole '/'-delimited segments, NOT as a raw string prefix), e.g. 'blog/posts' (trailing slash optional) returns everything under blog/posts/. A partial segment matches nothing — 'blog/2026-08' will NOT match 'blog/2026-08-01-hello'; use the full segment(s)
`include_total`	No	if true, also return total_count: the number of datafiles at this folder level (direct children of slug_prefix, or the tenant total when no prefix). Exact-as-full-total for a flat collection like a blog's posts under one prefix; a per-level count when nested. Use it for 'N items' / 'page X of Y'

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`datafiles`	Yes
`total_count`	No
`next_page_token`	Yes

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already communicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond annotations: tenant scoping, the CDN-published JSON nature of datafiles, and the hydration use case. openWorldHint=false is also consistent with the stated tenant scope; no contradiction exists.

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 compact sentences with no filler. The action and scope are front-loaded, and the datafile definition earns its place because it clarifies what is being listed.

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 operation with fully described parameters and an existing output schema, the description plus annotations supplies everything an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly. Return-value and pagination details are already covered by the schema, so the description does not need to repeat them.

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 four parameters thoroughly. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond that, which is acceptable but not value-adding.

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 ('List the datafiles') with an explicit scope ('belonging to the authenticated tenant'). The added definition of a datafile as a published JSON object served from a CDN clearly distinguishes it from generic assets or other sibling resources.

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?

Clear usage context is provided: this lists the authenticated tenant's datafiles, and the datafile definition helps separate it from sibling tools like list_assets or get_datafile. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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?