termix_automations_create_automationCreate an automation by defining a trigger and steps; validates the definition before saving and schedules the next run time for triggers.
Create an automation. Validates the trigger and every step before storing the definition. A schedule trigger also registers its next due time.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| definition | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral detail beyond the annotations: validation happens before persistence, and schedule triggers cause an additional side effect of registering the next due time. It does not contradict the annotations, and it clarifies the non-read-only, non-idempotent nature of the operation.
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?
Two sentences, no filler. The opening sentence states the primary purpose, and the second adds high-value behavioral information about validation and schedule-trigger side effects. Every sentence 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?
This is a potentially complex creation operation with no output schema and zero parameter descriptions, yet the description does not explain the expected definition shape, required fields, or return value. An agent would struggle to construct a valid call from this definition alone.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description needs to explain the parameters, but it barely does. It hints that 'definition' contains a trigger and steps, but it never explains the structure of the definition object, whether 'name' is required, or what valid trigger/step formats look like.
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 action ('Create an automation') and adds meaningful scope: it validates the trigger and every step before storing, and it highlights schedule-trigger behavior. This differentiates it from sibling tools like update_automation, run_automation_now, and trigger_automation_external_system, which concern modification or execution rather than creation.
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 clearly implies this tool is for creating new automations, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus update_automation or run_automation_now. There is no mention of prerequisites, when a schedule trigger is appropriate, or what distinguishes this from the update path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.