automation_recent_tasksGet the list of scheduled automation tasks with their status, cadence, and last execution results.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max tasks to return. Default: 20. | |
| profile_id | No | Which advertising profile (see account_profiles). Optional when the token has exactly one. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that it returns status, cadence, and last execution results, but it does not clarify whether results are per scheduled task or per run, nor any recency window or ordering. This is adequate but not rich.
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 a single efficient sentence with no filler. The verb and key result fields are front-loaded, making it easy to scan and act on.
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 read-only list call with two optional parameters, the description is mostly usable, but there is no output schema and the description does not specify the timeframe implied by 'recent' or whether each returned item represents a scheduled task or an individual run. This ambiguity weakens completeness for an agent choosing among similar automation tools.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both limit and profile_id are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.
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 uses a clear verb and resource: 'Get the list of scheduled automation tasks' with specific fields (status, cadence, last execution results). It is mostly distinguishable from siblings like automation_scheduled_tasks, though it does not explicitly clarify that this is about recent runs versus the task definitions themselves.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus automation_scheduled_tasks, automation_activity, or other automation-related siblings. The only contextual hint is an optional profile_id referencing account_profiles, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.