action1-mcp-server

Get the deployment statuses of a automation

action1_list_automation_deployment_statuses

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieves deployment statuses for a specified automation ID, helping you track rollout progress and review per-endpoint results.

Instructions

Get the deployment statuses of a automation. Gets the deployment statuses of a automation specified by its ID. Perm: view_automations.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`org_id`	No	Org UUID.
`verbose`	No	Skip per-item compactor.
`automation_id`	Yes	Provide a specific automation ID.
`response_format`	No	Output format. Default markdown.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	No
`count`	Yes
`items`	Yes
`total`	No
`truncated`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv0.6.0Oct 26, 2026

changedInput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / $schema

Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"

changedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Previous value: -trueNew value: +{}
```

addedOutput schema / properties / items / items / properties

Added value: +{
+  "deployment_count": {},
+  "excluded": {},
+  "failure_count": {},
+  "first_deployed_datetime": {},
+  "id": {},
+  "name": {},
+  "self": {},
+  "success_rate": {},
+  "type": {},
+  "vendor": {},
+  "version": {}
+}

First observedv0.5.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered structurally. The description's sole additional contribution is the required permission (view_automations), which is genuinely useful for auth planning, but nothing about scope, pagination, or freshness is added.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The first two sentences are near-duplicates of each other and of the title, which is wasted space. The permission note at the end is the only incremental information, and it is front-loaded poorly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists and annotations are rich, so return-value and safety details need not be explained. What is missing is disambiguation among the numerous automation status/results/instance siblings — an agent could not confidently pick this tool from the description alone.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and every parameter (org_id, verbose, automation_id, response_format with enum) is documented in the schema. The description only restates that the automation is 'specified by its ID', adding no semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource — getting deployment statuses of an automation specified by an ID — which is more than a restatement of the title. However, it gives no signal that distinguishes it from close siblings such as action1_get_automation_status, action1_get_automation_results, or action1_list_automation_instances, leaving an agent to guess which 'status' view it needs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many automation-related siblings (get_automation_status, get_automation_results, list_automation_instances). The only contextual cue is the permission note, which is not usage routing.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server