Fetch a specific automation by its ID from Follow Up Boss CRM to view or update its configuration.
Retrieve an Automation by ID. (GET /automations/{id})
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | ||
| extraQuery | No | Extra raw query parameters not explicitly listed above — e.g. FUB custom field filters like custom.ClosingDate on /people or /deals. Keys and values are sent as-is. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the HTTP method 'GET,' which implies a read operation, but it does not describe the response format, error behavior, authentication requirements, or any side effects. This is minimal coverage for a tool with no structural safety hints.
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 sentence plus the endpoint, with no filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, and every token contributes to identifying the tool.
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?
Given the absence of annotations and output schema, plus the presence of a nested extraQuery parameter and many automation-related siblings, this description is too thin. It does not clarify what an Automation is, what the response looks like, how extraQuery applies here, or when this tool should be preferred over list_automations or get_automations_person.
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 only 50%, and the description adds little beyond clarifying that 'id' is the identifier used in the URL. The extraQuery parameter is left to the schema's generic description, which gives examples for /people or /deals but no automation-specific context. The description does not compensate for the uncovered parameter semantics.
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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Retrieve an Automation by ID,' reinforced by the explicit 'GET /automations/{id}' endpoint. It is unambiguous about what the tool does and the 'by ID' scope helps distinguish it from list-style tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like list_automations or get_automations_person.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not say when to use this tool versus list_automations, nor does it mention alternatives or conditions for choosing a different automation-related tool. The agent is left to infer usage from the endpoint alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.