Retrieve automation lanes for a specified track, or all tracks if no track ID is provided.
List automation lanes on a track (or all tracks if track_id omitted).
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "automation_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| track_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the default behavior (all tracks when track_id omitted) and implies read-only via 'List', but does not describe the returned data (e.g., lane names vs. IDs) or behavior for tracks with no automation. There is no contradiction with 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?
A single sentence that front-loads the verb and resource and packs the key conditional (all tracks if omitted) with no wasted words.
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 tool is simple and the description covers scope, but without an output schema it does not state what the returned list contains or how lanes are identified. An agent might still be unsure what fields/values to expect before invoking subsequent automation tools.
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 only provides type 'string' with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does, by explaining that track_id targets a specific track and that omission means all tracks, fully covering the parameter's optionality and effect.
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 uses the specific verb 'List' with resource 'automation lanes' and clarifies scope ('on a track or all tracks'). This clearly identifies the read-only listing operation and is readily distinguished from sibling tools like automation_add or automation_clear.
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?
It gives clear parameter guidance: track_id is optional and omitting it lists all tracks. However, it never states when to prefer this over related automation tools or mentions any exclusions, so the when-to-use context is only implied by the verb 'List'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.