List automations for a SmartSuite solution, returning each automation's ID, name, enabled state, trigger, action count/types, and description.
List automations for a solution. Automations are scoped per solution (not per table). Returns each automation's id, name, enabled state, trigger reference, action count/types, and generated description.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| solutionId | Yes | The solution ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.8Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description need not repeat that. It adds value by explaining the scoping per solution (not per table) and listing the returned attributes, which is useful context beyond the annotation.
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, front-loaded with purpose, no redundant information. Every sentence contributes meaningful detail (scope and return fields).
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?
The description enumerates return fields, compensating for the lack of an output schema. It clarifies scope and contrasts with per-table scoping. However, it omits details like pagination or limits, which are minor given the tool's simplicity.
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 schema already fully documents the single parameter ('solutionId') with a description. The tool description reiterates 'solution' but adds no additional parameter-specific semantics, so baseline 3 applies.
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 tool lists automations for a solution, specifies the scope (per solution, not per table), and enumerates the return fields (id, name, etc.). It uses a specific verb and resource, making the purpose unambiguous.
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 for listing automations per solution but does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like smartsuite_describe_automation or smartsuite_create_automation. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.