automation_statusThe last runs of the company's automations: when, result, error. Needs the owner's sign-in.
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": "automation_status"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish this as a read-only, non-destructive, closed-world call, so the bar is lower. The description still adds two things beyond them: the auth requirement (owner's sign-in) and the shape of the returned records (when, result, error), which matters because there is no output schema. It omits how many runs 'last' means and whether results are scoped to the caller's company only.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler, and the returned fields are front-loaded. The phrasing 'The last runs of the company's automations' is slightly roundabout where 'last automation runs' would do, but nothing is redundant.
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?
For a zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool, the definition covers the essentials: what is returned, the fields per run, and the auth prerequisite. The remaining gap is scope and volume (how many runs, whether truncated), which an agent would want before relying on the result set.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty schema, and it correctly presents this as a no-argument call.
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 names the resource (the company's automations) and what is returned (the last runs, with when/result/error), which is more specific than the title alone. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling list_automations, so an agent must infer that this is run history rather than automation configuration.
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?
The clause 'Needs the owner's sign-in' is a useful prerequisite that tells the agent the call requires owner-level auth. There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of when to prefer list_automations instead, so the usage context is only implied.
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.