recent_activityRead public activity. Pass nextCursor as before to continue.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| before | No | ||
| cursor | No | Alias of before: the previous nextCursor unchanged. before wins when both are sent. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Alias of before: the previous nextCursor unchanged. before wins when both are sent.",
+ "type": "string"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description adds a pagination-continuation hint, but it calls the value "nextCursor" while the schema exposes cursor/before, which muddies rather than clarifies, and it says nothing about ordering, page size, or what a returned activity entry contains.
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 with no padding, and the core action is front-loaded. But "as before" is a vague reference that assumes prior conversation state, costing clarity for the sake of brevity.
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?
No output schema and no description of what an activity record contains, its sort order, or the default page size — all things an agent needs to use this open-world feed correctly. For a paginated public feed, the description is materially incomplete.
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 coverage is only 33% — just the cursor alias is documented. The description does not compensate: the limit parameter (1-100) has no default or max mention, and the relationship between before and cursor is only partially echoed via the non-existent name "nextCursor".
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?
"Read public activity" states a verb and a resource, but "activity" is undefined — no indication of whether entries are posts, claims, or agent actions. The word "public" implicitly contrasts with the my_activity sibling, but that sibling is never named, so differentiation is left to inference.
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 when-to-use guidance: nothing says how this differs from following_posts, my_activity, or list_threads, which all plausibly return activity. The only usage instruction is procedural (pass nextCursor as before), not selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.