Tessryx

Preview dynamic endpoint

preview_dynamic_endpoint

Render what a dynamic endpoint serves WITHOUT publishing — runs the endpoint's workflow through the full serve path (input + bound datafile + content-type) and returns the response, so you can preview a DRAFT before publishing (or verify any version). Omit version to preview the latest draft; pass a version to preview that one. For a :param endpoint (e.g. 'post/:slug'), pass sample params (e.g. {"slug":"hello"}) — they run through the definition's input_transform, so you can preview a specific URL and confirm a good value renders and a bad one fails input validation. This executes the workflow (may have side effects). Returns content_type, output (decoded as a string), the run status (status=failed with a message when the render did not succeed), the run_id (drill into the full run/traces with get_workflow_run_traces), and resolved_input (the $input the transform produced, for debugging the mapping).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No	the endpoint slug (provide this or endpoint_id)
`params`	No	sample path parameters for a :param endpoint (e.g. {"slug":"hello"} for a 'post/:slug' endpoint); fed to the definition's input_transform to build $input, so you can preview a specific URL and confirm it passes the workflow's input_schema
`version`	No	specific version to preview; omit (0) for the latest version (the draft)
`endpoint_id`	No	the endpoint id (provide this or slug)
`viewer_email`	No	simulated viewer's email, bound as auth.email. Only takes effect when the endpoint has a role allowlist (auth.allow.tenant_roles) — that is the only case where a real address reaches a workflow, so a preview without one ignores this, exactly as serving would
`viewer_roles`	No	simulated viewer's roles in this workspace, bound as auth.roles (e.g. ["ROLE_ADMIN"]) so you can preview role-gated rendering. Like viewer_email, only takes effect on an endpoint with a role allowlist
`viewer_user_id`	No	simulate a signed-in viewer for previewing a gated endpoint that exposes identity: the derived auth.viewer_id is computed from this, so the preview shows the real identifier. Omit it and a visible placeholder stands in. Ignored unless the endpoint gates and exposes identity

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`output`	Yes
`run_id`	No
`status`	Yes
`message`	No
`content_type`	Yes
`resolved_input`	No

Schema Changelog

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

First observedSep 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations (openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false), the description adds substantial behavioral disclosure: it executes the workflow through the full serve path including the bound datafile and content-type, and explicitly warns 'This executes the workflow (may have side effects).' It also discloses exact failure semantics (status=failed with a message) and when viewer simulation parameters take effect. No contradiction 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?

Dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, version semantics, params behavior, side-effect warning, and return-value semantics each occupy one clearly scoped sentence. The core purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the information flows logically from invocation to outcome.

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 complex 7-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed for correct invocation: when to use it, the side-effect risk, failure reporting, version selection, param handling for :param endpoints, and post-call debugging via run_id linking to get_workflow_run_traces. The return-value prose complements the output schema by explaining failure semantics rather than repeating structure.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining that sample params flow through the definition's input_transform, that the intent is to confirm good values render and bad ones fail input validation, and that resolved_input exposes the transformed $input for debugging. This genuinely deepens agent understanding of how params and output relate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Render what a dynamic endpoint serves WITHOUT publishing.' This immediately distinguishes it from publish_dynamic_endpoint and get_dynamic_endpoint, and it clarifies the draft-versus-version preview modes. No tautology — the title is expanded into a precise operational statement.

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?

Explicit use case is given: 'preview a DRAFT before publishing (or verify any version).' The description names a follow-up alternative, get_workflow_run_traces, for deeper drilling, and the 'WITHOUT publishing' framing contrasts with the publish sibling. It does not explicitly enumerate when-not-to-use cases (e.g., direct execution vs. run_workflow), slightly missing the full exclusion guidance.

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?