Skip to main content
Glama

List Assignment Automation

list_assignment_automation
Read-onlyIdempotent

Read assignment automation with your account's permissions. MCP approval requirements are configurable by the organization administrator; business workflow approvals always apply.

Tool call template

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": "list_assignment_automation"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
offsetNo
searchNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
dataYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds permission-scoping context ('with your account's permissions') and approval-policy context, but the approval sentences are tangential and no pagination or result-shape behavior is disclosed.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The core purpose is front-loaded in one short clause. The second sentence about MCP and business workflow approvals is somewhat off-topic for a read operation and consumes space without clearly helping the agent call the tool.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be explained, and readOnly annotations cover the safety profile. Still, with undocumented pagination/search parameters and no sibling differentiation, the description leaves meaningful gaps for an agent operating among many similar tools.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for all three parameters (limit, offset, search); only defaults and min/max constraints hint at meaning. The description is entirely silent on these parameters, so it fails to compensate for the documentation gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb+resource 'Read assignment automation' is identifiable, and the title clarifies it is a list operation. However, the description never distinguishes it from close siblings like list_team_assignment_automation or get_team_assignment_automation, so an agent cannot tell from the text which of these retrieves the collection it needs.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many sibling list/get/create tools. The second sentence discusses approval policy but does not tell the agent the conditions for selecting this tool or its alternatives.

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