get_automationRetrieve a single Instagram comment-to-DM automation by its ID to inspect or manage keyword-triggered DM flows.
Fetch a single automation by id.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the description adds almost nothing behavioral — no not-found/error behavior, no auth or scope requirements, no note on whether it returns the full record. It essentially restates the name and annotations.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is concise, though at the cost of any detail beyond the bare operation.
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 one-parameter read tool with a readOnly annotation and no output schema, this is minimally adequate; return shape needn't be described, but missing not-found handling and identification of the id source leave real gaps.
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 single parameter is documented at 0% coverage in the schema (only a regex pattern, no description). The phrase 'by id' confirms the id is the record selector, which is modest added value, but it gives no format, source, or example for obtaining the id.
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?
Contains a specific verb ('Fetch'), a clear resource ('automation'), and a scope qualifier ('a single ... by id') that implicitly separates it from list_automations. It does not explicitly name the sibling, but the singular-vs-list distinction is derivable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this over list_automations, update_automation, or get_lead/get_account. Usage is only implied by 'by id' — an agent must infer that it needs a known automation id and that this is the read-a-single-record path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.