Read automation runs.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"workspace": "<workspace>"
},
"name": "shopify_automations_runs"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| workspace | Yes | ||
| automation | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that this is a read operation; it does not mention pagination, filtering behavior, result shape, or workspace scoping.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is only one short sentence, but it is under-specified rather than efficiently concise. It does not front-load scope, filtering behavior, or required context, so its brevity leaves key information absent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With five parameters, a required workspace, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, the description is far too thin. It does not explain the required workspace scope, how run/automation filters work, or how pagination via limit and cursor behaves, leaving an agent unable to call the tool confidently.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has five parameters with 0% description coverage, including required workspace and optional run, limit, cursor, and automation. The description provides no parameter semantics at all, so it completely fails to compensate for the undocumented schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: "Read automation runs." However, it does not clarify what an automation run is or how this differs from siblings such as shopify_automations_list, shopify_automations_test, or agent_runs_list. The purpose is understandable but vague relative to the surrounding tool set.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention filtering by automation, fetching a single run, pagination, or when to choose shopify_automations_list instead. Usage must be inferred entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.