Retrieves a single automation by UUID, returning its trigger, action graph, schedule, and execution statistics so you can inspect or troubleshoot it.
Get a single automation with full details — trigger, actions graph, schedule, and execution stats.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Automation UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does useful work by disclosing the shape of the returned payload (trigger, actions graph, schedule, execution stats) and 'Get' implies a read-only operation, but it says nothing about permissions, not-found behavior, or whether draft vs published automations resolve differently.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the enumerated return fields are the most useful information and appear immediately after the action.
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?
For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and implies read semantics. Minor gaps remain around failure modes and draft/published handling, but nothing essential to invocation is missing.
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?
Only one parameter (id), and schema description coverage is 100% — the schema already documents it as 'Automation UUID'. The description adds nothing about the identifier, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (a single automation) and enumerates what the response contains: trigger, actions graph, schedule, and execution stats. The word 'single' implicitly distinguishes it from conduyt_list_automations, though no sibling is named explicitly.
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?
Usage is only implied — an agent can infer this is the detail-fetch following a list call. There is no explicit when-to-use, no mention of alternatives like conduyt_list_automations, and no prerequisites or error conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.