Skip to main content
Glama

list_automations

Retrieve classic automation workflows with their current status and performance statistics to monitor and manage automated email marketing campaigns.

Instructions

List classic automations with status and stats.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
offsetNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • Implementation of the list_automations MCP tool handler.
    @mcp.tool()
    async def list_automations(count: int = 20, offset: int = 0) -> str:
        """List classic automations with status and stats."""
        mc = get_client()
        data = await mc.get(
            "/automations",
            params={"count": min(count, 100), "offset": offset},
        )
        automations = []
        for a in data.get("automations", []):
            automations.append({
                "id": a.get("id", ""),
                "title": a.get("settings", {}).get("title", ""),
                "status": a.get("status", ""),
                "emails_sent": a.get("emails_sent", 0),
                "list_id": a.get("recipients", {}).get("list_id", ""),
                "start_time": a.get("start_time", ""),
                "created_at": a.get("create_time", ""),
            })
        return _fmt({
            "total_items": data.get("total_items", 0),
            "automations": automations,
        })
    
    
    @mcp.tool()
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions listing with 'status and stats', which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like pagination (implied by count/offset parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'classic automations' entails versus other types. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word contributes directly to stating the tool's purpose without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (list operation), 2 parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description is minimally adequate. It states what is listed but lacks context on automation types, pagination behavior, or error handling. The output schema likely covers return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should provide more operational guidance.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides (count and offset). The description doesn't explain parameter usage, defaults, or how they affect listing. With 2 parameters and no schema descriptions, this leaves gaps, but the tool's simple list function keeps it at baseline.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('classic automations'), specifying what information is included ('status and stats'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'pause_automation' and 'start_automation' by focusing on listing rather than controlling automations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'list_audiences', 'list_campaigns') beyond the resource type.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for listing 'classic automations' specifically, or compare to other list tools. With many sibling tools available, this lack of differentiation leaves usage unclear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/AlexlaGuardia/mcp-mailchimp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server