List all Zendesk automations with pagination support to manage and review automated ticket actions. Retrieve automation details for analysis or export.
List automations in Zendesk
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| page | No | Page number for pagination | |
| per_page | No | Number of automations per page (max 100) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, which cover the safety profile. The description adds no behavioral context beyond that, such as pagination behavior or response format. It neither contradicts nor enriches the annotations, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 concise sentence with no wasted words. The action is front-loaded, and it is perfectly sized for a simple list operation. Structure is optimal for clarity.
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 list tool with read-only annotations, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks any mention of filtering, sorting, or what the returned list contains. The openWorldHint suggests variability, but the description does not elaborate. It is adequate but not comprehensive.
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 100%, with both 'page' and 'per_page' already documented. The description does not add any additional parameter context. Since the schema fully covers parameters, the baseline is 3; the description adds no value here.
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 clearly states the action (list) and the resource (automations) within Zendesk. It distinguishes itself from sibling list tools (list_triggers, list_views, etc.) by explicitly naming the resource. This is a specific and unambiguous purpose.
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 context (when you need to retrieve automations) but provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The resource name makes it obvious, but there is no direct guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.