Retrieve a list of email automations with optional pagination (after, before, limit) to view and manage your automation workflows.
List automations (GET /automations).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| before | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, but it only conveys 'List' and 'GET', implying a read-only operation. It does not disclose pagination behavior, ordering, authentication requirements, rate limits, or what data is returned, leaving meaningful behavioral traits undocumented.
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?
The description is very short and front-loaded, with no filler, but it is under-specified for a tool with three undocumented parameters. It is concise without being informative enough to be considered well-structured.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description leaves important context uncovered, especially pagination semantics and what distinguishes this list call from related automation tools. It is adequate only for the most trivial interpretation of 'list automations'.
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?
The schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention any of them. 'after', 'limit', and 'before' are not explained; even their role as pagination controls is left entirely implicit, so the agent receives no semantic help beyond the parameter names.
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 states a specific verb ('List') and resource ('automations') and reinforces it with the HTTP endpoint GET /automations, so the core purpose is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish this from siblings like list_automation_runs or get_automation, but the wording is clear enough for basic selection.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_automation or list_automation_runs. There is no mention of prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions; the agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name and endpoint.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.