Automatisch MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v1.0.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose targeting specific resources and actions: connections, workflows, executions, and apps. There is no overlap or ambiguity, with tools like create_workflow, update_workflow, and delete_workflow covering different lifecycle stages without confusion.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with snake_case throughout, such as create_connection, list_workflows, and update_workflow. The naming is predictable and uniform, making it easy for agents to understand and select tools.
Tool Count5/5
With 10 tools, the count is well-scoped for managing workflows, connections, and executions in an automation platform. Each tool serves a clear purpose, such as CRUD operations for workflows and monitoring executions, without being excessive or insufficient.
Completeness4/5
The toolset provides strong coverage for core workflow management, including create, read, update, delete, list, and test operations, along with connection handling and execution monitoring. A minor gap exists in lacking tools for updating or deleting connections, but agents can still perform essential tasks effectively.
Average 2.9/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Create a new workflow' implies a write operation, but it doesn't disclose permissions needed, whether creation is idempotent, error conditions, or what happens upon success (e.g., returns a workflow ID). For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence with zero waste, making it appropriately concise. However, it's under-specified rather than efficiently informative—it could benefit from more detail without losing conciseness. It's front-loaded but lacks depth.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of creating a workflow (a mutation with 3 parameters), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what a workflow is, what happens after creation, or how to handle errors. For a tool with siblings like 'delete_workflow' and 'update_workflow', more context is needed to ensure proper use.
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%, with all parameters documented in the schema (name, description, active). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as constraints on the name or implications of the active flag. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the basic action ('Create a new workflow') which is clear but vague. It doesn't specify what a workflow entails in this context or distinguish it from sibling tools like 'create_connection' or 'update_workflow'. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about the resource being created.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when to choose this over 'update_workflow', or how it relates to sibling tools like 'list_workflows' or 'test_workflow'. Users must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states the action without behavioral details. It doesn't disclose if this requires specific permissions, whether it's idempotent, what happens on failure, or typical response format, which are critical for a creation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly, though this conciseness comes at the cost of detail.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a creation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on success/failure behavior, return values, error handling, or how it fits with siblings like 'get_available_apps', leaving significant gaps for agent usage.
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%, so parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds no extra meaning beyond implying 'app connection' relates to 'appKey', but this is already clear from the schema, meeting the baseline for high coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('create') and resource ('app connection'), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'create_workflow' or 'list_connections', leaving ambiguity about what an 'app connection' specifically is versus other connection types or workflows.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. For example, it doesn't mention prerequisites like needing 'get_available_apps' first, or contrast with 'list_connections' for viewing existing ones, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states 'update' which implies mutation, but doesn't cover permissions needed, whether changes are reversible, side effects (e.g., on active workflows), or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse. Every word earns its place, though it could benefit from additional context.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (mutation with 4 parameters), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'update' entails behaviorally, potential impacts, or return values. For a tool that modifies workflows, more context is needed to guide safe and effective use.
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%, so the schema fully documents all 4 parameters (workflowId, name, description, active). The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, such as format constraints or examples. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('update') and resource ('existing workflow'), which is clear but basic. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_workflow' or 'delete_workflow' beyond the verb, and lacks specificity about what aspects can be updated. This is a minimal viable description that avoids tautology but provides no additional context.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'create_workflow' or 'delete_workflow'. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow ID) or contextual cues for selection. This leaves the agent to infer usage solely from the tool name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Delete' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether deletion is permanent, reversible, requires specific permissions, affects related data (e.g., executions), or has side effects. This is a significant gap for a destructive operation with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is extremely concise ('Delete a workflow'), with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently conveys the core action, though this brevity contributes to gaps in other dimensions. Every sentence (here, one) earns its place by stating the purpose directly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's destructive nature, lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what deletion entails, return values, error conditions, or dependencies on sibling tools. For a mutation tool with high complexity risk, more context is needed to guide safe usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'workflowId' documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but with only one parameter and high coverage, the baseline is high. No compensation is needed, but no extra value is added either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose3/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the action ('Delete') and resource ('a workflow'), which is clear but minimal. It doesn't differentiate from siblings like 'update_workflow' or specify what 'delete' entails (e.g., permanent removal vs. archiving). While it avoids tautology, it lacks specificity about scope or consequences.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing the workflow ID from 'get_workflow' or 'list_workflows'), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'update_workflow' for modifications. The agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states 'Get detailed information' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, or what the response format includes. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness4/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that states the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, though it could be slightly more structured by including usage hints without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (retrieving detailed info), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'detailed information' includes, potential errors, or behavioral aspects, making it inadequate for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and usage.
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%, with the parameter 'workflowId' documented as 'Workflow ID to retrieve'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline is 3 since the schema does the heavy lifting, but no extra value is provided.
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 clearly states the verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a specific workflow'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' or 'test_workflow', which would require specifying what 'detailed information' entails compared to those alternatives.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a workflow ID), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'list_workflows' for overviews or 'test_workflow' for validation, leaving usage context unclear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 but only states the basic action. It doesn't mention whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires permissions, how results are ordered or paginated, or any rate limits. For a list tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, direct sentence with zero waste—it states the purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a simple list tool and front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of listing workflows (which may involve filtering, pagination, or permissions), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to address key aspects like return format, error handling, or behavioral traits. It relies too heavily on the input schema alone, leaving gaps for an AI agent to infer usage.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, with clear descriptions for both parameters ('status' and 'limit'), including an enum for 'status'. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clearly states the action ('List') and resource ('all workflows in Automatisch'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_workflow' or 'list_executions', but the verb 'List all' suggests a comprehensive retrieval rather than fetching a single item or related executions.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_workflow' for a single workflow or 'list_executions' for workflow runs. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is needed or if it's the primary method for browsing workflows.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states the tool tests a workflow with sample data, implying a read-only or simulation operation, but doesn't clarify if this is a dry run, if it affects production data, what permissions are needed, or what the output entails. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely executes workflows.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, making it easy to parse quickly.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness2/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the complexity of testing workflows (which may involve execution and data handling), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It doesn't explain behavioral aspects like safety, output format, or error handling, leaving the agent with insufficient information for reliable use.
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%, so the schema already documents both parameters ('workflowId' and 'testData'). The description adds minimal value by implying 'testData' is sample data for testing, but doesn't provide additional context like format examples or constraints beyond what the schema states.
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 clearly states the action ('Test') and resource ('a workflow with sample data'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes this as a testing operation rather than creation, deletion, or listing, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_executions' which might involve workflow execution.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing an existing workflow), exclusions, or how it differs from related tools like 'list_executions' or 'update_workflow' in a testing context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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 states the action but doesn't add context about traits like whether it's read-only, requires permissions, has rate limits, or what the return format looks like. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that presumably lists resources.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
Given the low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavioral traits and usage context, making it incomplete for optimal agent decision-making without additional inference.
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?
The schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the 'category' parameter. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of categories or how filtering works, but it doesn't need to compensate for gaps, resulting in a baseline score.
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 clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'list of available apps and their capabilities', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_connections' or 'list_workflows' by specifying what makes 'apps' distinct, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_connections' or 'list_workflows'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether authentication is needed, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'List all app connections' but doesn't describe the return format (e.g., list of objects, pagination), permissions required, or any rate limits. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste: 'List all app connections'. It's front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple tool, making it easy to parse without unnecessary details.
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?
Given the tool's low complexity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description is minimally complete but lacks depth. It covers the basic purpose but doesn't address behavioral aspects like return format or usage context, which are important for an agent to invoke it correctly without annotations or output schema.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'appKey' documented as 'Filter by specific app'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as examples of app keys or how filtering works. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.
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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all app connections'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_available_apps' or 'create_connection', which would require more specificity about what distinguishes listing connections from other operations.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, such as needing existing connections, or compare it to siblings like 'get_available_apps' (which might list apps vs. connections). Without this context, usage is implied but not explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does 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. 'List workflow executions' implies a read-only operation but doesn't specify whether it returns all executions or requires pagination, what permissions are needed, or the format of returned data. For a tool with 3 parameters and no annotations, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, efficient phrase that communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's perfectly front-loaded and appropriately sized for a simple listing tool.
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?
For a listing tool with good schema coverage but no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It identifies the resource type but doesn't provide context about what 'executions' entail, how results are structured, or important behavioral constraints. The schema handles parameter documentation, but overall context remains incomplete.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage, clearly documenting all three parameters with their purposes and constraints. The description doesn't add any parameter information beyond what's in the schema, but since the schema is comprehensive, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 'List workflow executions' clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('workflow executions'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It distinguishes this from sibling tools like 'list_workflows' or 'list_connections' by specifying the resource type. However, it doesn't specify scope or filtering capabilities, which prevents a perfect score.
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?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, when filtering is appropriate, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'get_workflow' or 'list_workflows'. The agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![automatisch-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/milisp/automatisch-mcp-server/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/milisp/automatisch-mcp-server)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![automatisch-mcp-server MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/milisp/automatisch-mcp-server/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/milisp/automatisch-mcp-server)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/milisp/automatisch-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server