termix_automations_list_current_users_automationsLists all automations owned by the current user, including parsed definitions and linked notification channels, to review or manage their Termix automations.
List the current user's automations. Returns every automation the caller owns, with its parsed definition and linked notification channels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the read-only, idempotent, non-destructive safety profile, so the description's job is to add context beyond that. It does so by disclosing the response contents: parsed automation definitions and linked notification channels. It does not mention pagination or ordering, but for a zero-parameter list this is a minor gap.
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 short sentences with no wasted words. The verb and resource are front-loaded, and the second sentence adds meaningfully useful return-value detail rather than repeating the title.
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?
For a zero-parameter, read-only list operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it says what will be listed, whose data is returned, and what the returned items contain. Nothing needed to invoke the tool correctly is missing.
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 tool accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so the description has no parameter burden. Per the 0-parameter baseline, no additional parameter guidance is needed.
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 ('List'), a clear resource ('the current user's automations'), and a precise scope ('every automation the caller owns'). It also differentiates from siblings like fetch_single_automation and list_automation_runs by describing the full owned set rather than a single automation or its runs.
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 gives clear context: use this when you need to enumerate all automations owned by the caller, including their parsed definitions and linked notification channels. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the list-versus-single/runs distinction is clear enough from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.