Skip to main content
Glama

Register an automation

register_automation
Idempotent

Tell Maplith about an automation your human's business runs in its own systems, so the map knows what depends on each object. Give its name, the system it runs in, and the map objects it reads and writes, at least one, spelled as the map spells them; list_automations shows what is registered. An unknown object name is refused, with the names not found. Add what you know: status (active, paused, never_run, unknown), when it last ran and how that run ended, the team that owns it, its number of steps (modules). Registering the same name in the same system again updates that entry, so call it again to report how it is running; leave reads and writes out to keep the objects. An entry a person confirmed keeps its name, team and objects. It writes an entry in the map only, never runs or connects to the automation; the call is logged. Needs: an autonomous key.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesWhat the business calls it, at most 200 characters.
teamNoThe team that owns it, if known. A team, not a person.
readsNoObjects of this map it reads, as the map spells them. At most 50.
statusNoWhether it is running. Default for a new entry: unknown.
systemYesWhere it runs, e.g. the platform or scheduler, at most 100 characters.
writesNoObjects of this map it writes or changes, as the map spells them. At most 50.
modulesNoHow many steps it has, if known.
last_run_atNoISO 8601 timestamp of its last run, if known.
last_statusNoHow its last run ended, if known: succeeded or failed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / last_status / description
      Previous value: -"How its last run ended, if known."New value: +"How its last run ended, if known: succeeded or failed."
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: documents the refusal path for unknown object names with the returned not-found names, the upsert-by-name/system identity rule, the guard that human-confirmed entries keep name/team/objects, that it only writes a map entry and never runs the automation, that the call is logged, and that an autonomous key is required.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then requirements, then optional enrichment, then mutation semantics. Dense but each clause carries distinct information; a couple of the long semicolon-chained sentences could be split.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description covers required inputs, error behavior, idempotency/update semantics, preservation rules, side effects, and auth needs. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3; the description adds a real constraint not visible in the schema — reads/writes need 'at least one' and must match map spelling — and enumerates status values and the optional fields (last run, ending, owner team, step count).

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?

States a specific verb ('tell Maplith about / register an automation') and resource, plus the reason the map cares ('so the map knows what depends on each object'). Explicitly separates itself from list_automations, which is described as the read path.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Covers when to call (reporting an automation, including re-reporting status), what the alternative is ('list_automations shows what is registered'), and the upsert condition ('same name in the same system again updates that entry'). Also specifies the partial-update rule: omit reads/writes to preserve them.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources