Retrieve all tenant triggers that automatically start agent runs. Filter results by enabled status, agent ID, or trigger type to inspect automation configuration.
Lista todos os triggers do tenant. Triggers disparam execuções de agentes automaticamente.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| enabled | No | Filtrar por status (habilitado/desabilitado) | |
| agent_id | No | Filtrar por agente específico | |
| trigger_type | No | Filtrar por tipo de trigger |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.2.2Input schema / properties / trigger_type / enumPrevious value: -[
- "webhook",
- "db_event",
- "email",
- "schedule"
-]New value: +[
+ "webhook",
+ "email",
+ "schedule"
+]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds conceptual context (triggers fire agent executions automatically) but nothing operational such as pagination, default ordering, or tenant-scoping behavior beyond 'do tenant'.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope. The second sentence is mildly pedagogical but cheap and helps orient an agent unfamiliar with triggers.
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 filtered list with rich annotations and full schema coverage, the description is adequate but omits that filtering is possible and gives no hint about result volume or ordering. No output schema exists, yet the return shape is left unexplained.
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% with all three filters (enabled, agent_id, trigger_type) documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no filter semantics of its own, merely implying a full tenant-wide listing.
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 and resource ('Lista todos os triggers do tenant') and adds a one-line explanation of what a trigger is. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as list_trigger_executions, get_trigger, or test_trigger, so it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus list_trigger_executions or get_trigger, and no mention that it can be filtered. The second sentence explains what triggers are rather than when to call this listing tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.