Retrieve a MisarMail automation workflow by ID, including its trigger, every step with delay, and per-step completion stats.
Get one automation workflow in full: trigger, every step with its delay, and per-step completion stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| automation_id | Yes | Automation ID (UUID) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral detail about the response contents (trigger, steps with delays, completion stats), which goes beyond the schema and helps the agent understand what data will be available.
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 a single, focused sentence that front-loads the verb and resource. It contains no filler or redundant information.
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 simple one-parameter read tool, the description covers the key return elements: trigger, steps, delays, and completion stats. Combined with strong annotations, this is sufficient contextual information, though it does not mention error cases or the overall automation metadata.
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 input schema fully documents automation_id as a UUID string (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add parameter details. The description's mention of 'one automation workflow' aligns with the parameter but adds no extra semantic meaning beyond the schema.
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 uses a specific verb 'Get' with a resource 'one automation workflow' and details the scope: 'in full: trigger, every step with its delay, and per-step completion stats.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_automations, which likely returns summaries.
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 implies usage when full details of a single automation are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_automations. No exclusions or alternative references are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.