Retrieve automation routines and past runs, optionally filtered by a Unix millisecond time range.
List routines and runs, optionally within a millisecond range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to_ms | No | Optional range end in Unix ms. | |
| from_ms | No | Optional range start in Unix ms. |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds that runs are included and that a millisecond range is supported, but it does not mention pagination, ordering, or response behavior. This is useful but not rich behavioral context beyond 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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The verb, resource, and optional constraint all appear immediately, and every word contributes meaning.
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 simple read-only list tool with no required parameters, complete schema documentation, and an output schema, this description is nearly sufficient. The main gap is clarifying whether the millisecond range applies to routines, runs, or both, and how routines relate to runs, but the output schema mitigates return-format concerns.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already fully documented. The description only restates the millisecond range concept without adding semantics beyond what the schema provides, so 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.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('routines and runs'), and a scope ('optionally within a millisecond range'). It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling list tools such as list_bots, list_webhooks, and list_decisions by naming the resource.
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?
The usage is implied: use this tool when you need to list routines or runs. However, the description provides no explicit guidance about when to prefer this over sibling tools or any exclusions, so it stops at implied usage rather than clear routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.