list-automation-executionsList all automation executions. Each entry includes the matched event, the payload sent and the endpoint response. Supports paging via "page" and "per_page".
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | The page number to retrieve (1-based). | |
| per_page | No | Number of items per page (max 100). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark readOnlyHint=true; description adds that it lists executions with details and supports paging. No contradiction, and the additional context is valuable.
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 concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence adds value. No wasted words.
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 simple list operation with two parameters and clear annotations, the description is complete: it states what is returned and paging behavior. No output schema but the description covers return details adequately.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are well-described in the schema. The description only restates that paging is supported, adding no new semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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?
Clearly states 'List all automation executions' with specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from sibling tools like 'list-automations' by specifying what each entry includes (matched event, payload, endpoint response).
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?
Provides clear context for use (listing automation executions with paging) but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and does not name alternatives.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct operation (document management, PDF manipulation, automation, analytics, etc.) with clear boundaries, making it easy for an agent to select the correct one.
All tool names follow a strict lowercase-with-hyphens pattern and use consistent verb-noun phrasing (e.g., 'create-document', 'list-documents', 'add-pdf-security'), ensuring predictability.
At 45 tools, the server far exceeds the recommended 3-15 range for a well-scoped set. While the coverage is comprehensive, the high number may overwhelm agents and suggests insufficient consolidation.
The tool surface covers the full lifecycle of documents and PDFs—creation, retrieval, update, deletion, archiving, security, OCR, splitting, merging, automation, analytics, and more—with no obvious gaps.