Tessryx

List dynamic endpoint runs

list_dynamic_endpoint_runs

Read-onlyIdempotent

List a dynamic endpoint's recent EXECUTIONS, newest-first — the place to look when a live page is broken. Each item carries the outcome (status + the failure message the public URL hides behind a 500) plus request_path, the resolved path including any :param values, so you can see WHICH request failed on a parameterised endpoint. run_id resolves to the full run and its step traces via get_workflow_run / get_workflow_run_traces. Only cache MISSES that reached the origin appear here, so this is renders, not traffic; history is kept for about two weeks. Defaults to live serves — pass previews=true for the editor-preview history instead.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_dynamic_endpoint_runs"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No	the endpoint slug (provide this or endpoint_id)
`previews`	No	list editor PREVIEW runs instead of live serves; defaults to false (live serves only)
`page_size`	No	maximum number of runs to return in this page
`page_token`	No	token from a previous response's next_page_token to fetch the next page
`endpoint_id`	No	the endpoint id (provide this or slug)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`runs`	Yes
`next_page_token`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses that only cache MISSES reaching the origin appear, that history spans about two weeks, that failure messages are normally hidden behind a public 500, and that live serves are the default with previews opt-in. These are non-obvious behavioral traits an agent could not infer from structured fields.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and each subsequent sentence carries new information (outcome fields, run_id resolution, cache-miss scope, retention, previews default). Dense but slightly heavy with parentheticals; nearly every sentence earns its place.

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?

An output schema exists so return-value detail is not required, yet the description still orients the agent to key item fields (outcome, request_path). With one of slug/endpoint_id optional, the guidance on which to provide is covered by the schema. Nothing material is missing for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds semantic context: slug/endpoint_id are interchangeable identifiers, request_path resolves :param values, and previews flips between live and editor history. It does not add syntax or paging detail beyond the schema, so not a 5.

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 a dynamic endpoint's recent EXECUTIONS, newest-first') and names the motivating scenario (a live page is broken). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like list_runs, list_schedule_runs, and list_dynamic_endpoints by being scoped to execution history of one endpoint.

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?

Gives an explicit trigger ('the place to look when a live page is broken'), an explicit exclusion in scope (cache misses only, renders not traffic), and routes onward to alternatives: get_workflow_run / get_workflow_run_traces for full runs, and previews=true for editor-preview history.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?