list_automationsList all marketing automations in SendGrid with pagination. Set limit and offset to page through automation workflows.
List all marketing automations
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of results to return | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseDoes the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safe, non-mutating nature is established. The description adds only the 'all' scope and does not contradict annotations; however, it does not disclose pagination behavior or whether inactive/draft automations are included.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word earns its place, and the tool's core purpose is immediately clear.
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 read-only list with no required parameters, the description is near-sufficient, and the schema covers pagination parameters. However, the 'all' claim is not reconciled with default pagination, and without an output schema the description does not mention what fields or resource types are returned beyond 'automations'.
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%: both limit and offset already have descriptions ('Number of results to return', 'Pagination offset'). The tool description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 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 'List all marketing automations' clearly identifies the verb (list), resource (marketing automations), and scope (all). It is unambiguous versus sibling tools like get_automation, update_automation_settings, and list_single_sends, though it does not explicitly name any alternative or exclusion.
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 is given on when to choose this tool versus alternatives such as get_automation, list_single_sends, or open_automation_editor. The description simply states the action and never addresses selecting between list tools or retrieving a single automation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.