Tessryx

Update custom domain

update_custom_domain

Update a custom domain's mutable settings: its label (display_name) and its routing (slug_prefix + root_endpoint). This is how a domain becomes the public front door of an app: set slug_prefix to the app's slug prefix so shop.customer.com/ serves /, and root_endpoint to the app's landing endpoint so '/' has a page. All provided fields are set WHOLESALE — an empty value CLEARS that setting. The hostname identifies the domain and cannot be changed — and these tools cannot delete a domain, so a hostname cannot be moved from here; removing a claim is done in the Tessryx app.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`hostname`	Yes	The hostname identifying the domain to update.
`slug_prefix`	No	The endpoint subtree this domain mounts (usually an app's slug prefix). Empty = the whole tenant tree. Set wholesale.
`display_name`	No	Human label. Empty clears it.
`root_endpoint`	No	What the domain root ('/') serves, RELATIVE to slug_prefix. Empty = the root returns 404. Set wholesale.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes
`hostname`	Yes
`dns_records`	No
`slug_prefix`	No
`verified_at`	No
`activated_at`	No
`display_name`	No
`root_endpoint`	No
`last_check_message`	No
`cert_status_message`	No

Schema Changelog

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

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 annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral traits: all provided fields are set wholesale, empty values clear settings, root_endpoint empty returns 404, and hostname cannot be changed or deleted through these tools. This adds meaningful operational context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then provides a concrete example, then important behavioral caveats. Every sentence adds useful information and none is wasted on repetition of the title or schema.

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 four-parameter mutation with a required hostname, the description fully explains parameter semantics, mutation behavior, and limitations. With an output schema present, return-value details are not needed here, making this definition effectively complete for correct invocation.

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?

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema: it explains the routing relationship with a concrete example, clarifies that slug_prefix is relative to the tenant tree, and emphasizes wholesale overwrite semantics. This is more than redundant paraphrasing.

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 states a specific verb and resource: updating a custom domain's mutable settings, explicitly listing display_name, slug_prefix, and root_endpoint. It distinguishes the tool from creation, verification, and deletion by clarifying the hostname is immutable and deletion is not possible here.

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 gives clear context for when this tool is relevant: turning a domain into an app's public front door by configuring slug_prefix and root_endpoint. It also notes an exclusion by warning that hostname cannot be changed and deletion must be done in the Tessryx app, though it does not explicitly compare against create_custom_domain.

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?