Skip to main content
Glama
ohneben

ActiveCampaign MCP

list_flow_execution

Read-onlyIdempotent

List flow executions from ActiveCampaign WhatsApp flows. Filter by flow ID, status, or creator email, and paginate results to view execution history.

Instructions

🟢 READ-ONLY · Whatsapp · GET /channel/whatsapp/flow-execution

List Flow Executions

Fetches data. Makes no changes to your ActiveCampaign account.

Lists Flow Executions.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
flowNoA Flow Id to filter the Flow Executions and only get those from that Flow.
pageNoA page number within the paginated result set.
limitNoNumber of results per page (ActiveCampaign default 20, max 100).
offsetNoZero-based offset into the result set for pagination.
ordersNoSort order as an object, e.g. {"email":"ASC"} → orders[email]=ASC.
searchNoYou can search with the `status`, `created_by__email` fields.
filtersNoField filters as an object, e.g. {"name":"ecom"} → filters[name]=ecom.
flow_versionNo
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds the HTTP method and path, which provides useful context beyond the annotations. No contradiction.

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 description is short but repetitive ('List Flow Executions' appears three times). It could be more concise by removing redundancy.

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?

With 8 parameters and no output schema, the description lacks information about the response format, pagination behavior, or how to interpret results. The schema covers parameters well, but context about usage patterns is missing.

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 coverage is 88%, so the schema already describes most parameters. The description does not add any additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 tool lists flow executions, is read-only, and provides the HTTP method and path. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling list tools like 'list_flow_execution_contact'.

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 or when not to use it. The description only states the basic function.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

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/ohneben/ActiveCampaign-MCP'

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