GenFlick

List automations

native.list_automations

DestructiveIdempotent

List the account's automations across every studio, or one studio's: state, what each does, when it runs next, the last result and this month's spending against its cap. Read this before creating or editing one.

Tool call template

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": {
      "work_id": "<work_id>",
      "arguments": "<arguments>",
      "expected_catalog_version": "<expected_catalog_version>",
      "read_skills": "<read_skills>",
      "request_key": "<request_key>"
    },
    "name": "native.list_automations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`work_id`	Yes
`arguments`	Yes
`read_skills`	Yes	Exact required native skills and their dependencies, copied from the accepted session bootstrap's skills array. Include only entries in that array. General mcp.* guides and native.{studio}.instructions are guidance, not native skill proofs.
`request_key`	Yes
`publication_proposal_id`	No	For native Social scheduling, the exact server-approved publication proposal. This identifier cannot confer approval by itself.
`expected_catalog_version`	Yes	For a new session, read a studios/{studio}/native/{pack} child toolset and copy invocation.catalog_version from a native tool descriptor. Do not use the top-level library version. For calls in an existing session, use that session proposal's catalog_version.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description frames this purely as a read operation ("List…", "Read this before…"), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true. That is a direct conflict about the tool's side-effect profile, and the description offers no caveat explaining writes, permissions, or consequences. No credit is available for the extra return-content detail when the safety story contradicts the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and scope, then the workflow prerequisite. The middle enumeration of returned fields is somewhat redundant with the output schema, but it is compressed into one clause and does not bloat the definition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a 6-parameter, nested-schema tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, scoping, and ordering relative to sibling mutations — the important parts. The gaps are the archived-inclusion default and the unresolved destructive-vs-read framing, the latter of which is material.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is only 50%, so the description carries real weight; it correctly clarifies studio_id scope semantics ("across every studio, or one studio's"). It says nothing about include_archived, so whether archived automations are returned by default remains ambiguous, and the generic plumbing parameters are left entirely to the schema.

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?

Specific verb + resource + scope: "List the account's automations across every studio, or one studio's," and it enumerates the returned facets (state, schedule, last result, spend against cap). Plural "automations" clearly separates it from the singular sibling native.read_automation, and "before creating or editing one" points at native.save_automation.

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?

Gives an actionable pre-condition: "Read this before creating or editing one," which tells the agent to call this ahead of save/set_automation_state. It also states the two scope modes (all studios vs one). It never names an explicit exclusion or an alternative listing tool, so it stops short of a full when/when-not statement.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All GenFlick tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?