List Action1 policies by organization ID to view automations, deployment rules, and remediation policies.
List Action1 policies (automations, deployment rules, remediation policies) in an organization. Use org id from action1_list_organizations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| organization_id | No | Organization id. Defaults to ACTION1_DEFAULT_ORG_ID from credentials if omitted. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description only says 'list' without disclosing any behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication requirements, or side effects. The description does not add value beyond the implied read-only nature.
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 concise sentences with no extra words. The first sentence defines the action and scope, the second gives practical guidance. Each 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?
For a simple list operation with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and a key input source. It does not detail output format or whether results are paginated, but completeness is adequate 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?
Schema coverage is 100% and already describes the parameter (organization_id, defaults to env var). The description adds context by stating which sibling tool provides the org id, enhancing understanding.
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 it lists Action1 policies, specifying types like automations, deployment rules, and remediation policies. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that list organizations or endpoints.
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 explicitly advises using the org id from the sibling tool 'action1_list_organizations', providing clear context on how to obtain a required input. However, it does not specify when to use this tool versus alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.