Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Arsel MCP Server

Arsel MCP Server

Official
by Arsel-SA
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

List Automations

list-automations
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve automations newest first, filter by draft, enabled, or disabled status, and paginate results to review automation state in an Arsel organization.

Instructions

List automations, newest first, with their status: draft until first enabled, then enabled or disabled. Don't read ids or timestamps back to the user unless they ask for them.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list-automations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
afterNoCursor for the next page: the `id` of the last item on this page. Cannot be combined with `before`.
limitNoItems per page, 1-100. Defaults to 20.
beforeNoCursor for the previous page: the `id` of the first item on this page.
statusNoOnly automations in this status.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv1.2.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: results come back newest-first, and status follows a lifecycle (draft until first enabled). The presentation rule about not echoing ids/timestamps is unusual, useful operational context not present in annotations.

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?

Two short sentences, zero filler, with the ordering and status semantics front-loaded before the presentation caveat. Every clause carries information an agent could not get from annotations or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A simple read-only list tool with full parameter documentation and no output schema; the description covers ordering, status semantics, and output-presentation expectations. It stops short of describing pagination behavior or the other fields returned per automation, which leaves a mild gap given there is no output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description earns a bump by explaining what the status enum values mean ('draft until first enabled, then enabled or disabled'), which clarifies the filter beyond the schema's bare 'Only automations in this status.' It says nothing about cursor or limit behavior, but the schema handles those fully.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('List automations') and adds the ordering contract ('newest first'). It does not name a sibling, so it stops short of the full differentiation bar, but the resource is unambiguous against siblings like list-automation-runs or list-lists.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the name and the ordering claim, but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not, or pointer to an alternative (e.g. list-automation-runs for run history). The one directive given is about presentation to the user, not about selecting this tool over another.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools