GET /inbox/automations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | Optional query overrides for endpoints with sparse parameter schemas. | |
| brand_id | No | ||
| workspace_id | No | Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / workspace_id / descriptionAdded value: +"Workspace to operate in. Do not ask the user for this UUID — call aidelly_list_workspaces and use the `id` of the matching workspace. Optional for read operations; required when creating content."Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context (e.g., what data is returned, pagination, or side effects). No additional transparency beyond structured fields.
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?
Extremely short (5 words), but lacks a front-loaded verb phrase. Under-specification rather than conciseness; does not efficiently convey core purpose.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, nested object, many siblings, no output schema), the description is wholly inadequate. Does not explain what inbox automations are, the response format, or how it differs from related tools.
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 67% (two of three parameters have descriptions), but the tool description does not elaborate on any parameter's meaning or usage. It adds no value 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?
Description is 'GET /inbox/automations', which only restates the endpoint without explaining that it retrieves inbox automations. Lacks a verb+resource that clarifies the action beyond the HTTP method.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like aidelly_get_content_automations or aidelly_post_inbox_automations. Does not mention context or exclusions.
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.