list_automationsList marketing automations (workflows). Returns automation IDs, names, status, and enrolled-contact counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 20, max 100). | |
| _apiKey | Yes | ActiveCampaign API key (UI: Settings → Developer). | |
| account | Yes | Your ActiveCampaign account URL or subdomain, e.g. "https://youraccount.api-us1.com" or just "youraccount". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "_apiKey": "your-activecampaign-api-key",
+ "account": "myaccount"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. The description adds specific detail about returned data (IDs, names, status, counts), providing value beyond annotations without contradiction.
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?
Single sentence that is concise, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 list tool with 100% schema coverage, annotations, and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and returns. No gaps for typical usage.
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% with clear parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add new parameter information, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 specific verb 'List' and resource 'marketing automations (workflows)', and specifies return fields (IDs, names, status, enrolled-contact counts), clearly distinguishing it from sibling list tools like list_campaigns or list_contacts.
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?
The description implies usage for listing automations but offers no explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives (e.g., list_campaigns), nor any exclusion criteria. Agents must infer usage from context.
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.