Flowlines - MCP Analytics

Get user activity

get_user_activity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Drill into one user's activity timeline, costs, outcomes, agents, intents, signals, and representative sessions. Results may contain end-user personal data: quote minimally and mask direct identifiers.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "reason": "<reason>",
      "user_intent": "<user_intent>",
      "namespace_id": "<namespace_id>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_user_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`range`	No		30d
`reason`	Yes	A short phrase saying why you are calling this tool, for example: find unpaid invoices.
`user_id`	Yes	Flowlines user ID returned by list_users; not a name or email from a transcript.
`interval`	No		day
`user_intent`	Yes	One sentence describing what the user is trying to accomplish. Keep it the same across calls until the user's goal changes.
`namespace_id`	Yes	Flowlines namespace UUID.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`notice`	No
`truncation`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious context: results may contain end-user PII and the agent should quote minimally and mask direct identifiers. It stops short of describing result volume, pagination or rate limits.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two tight sentences: the capability and scope come first, the PII caveat second. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description needn't explain return values, and it correctly covers the sensitivity of the data plus the scope of the drill-down. What it lacks is sibling routing and any hint that user_intent/reason are required steering parameters, which is the main remaining gap.

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 description coverage is 67% (range and interval are undocumented, and the reason/user_intent conventions live only in the schema), so the description could have compensated but does not mention any parameter. The facet list describes output dimensions rather than inputs, leaving the parameter burden largely on the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb ('drill into') and scoped resource ('one user's activity timeline') and enumerates the facets returned (costs, outcomes, agents, intents, signals, sessions). It clearly distinguishes itself as a per-user drill-down, though it never names the siblings (get_session, list_sessions, aggregate_sessions) it competes with.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as obtaining user_id from list_users, and no routing advice against the many sibling tools. The phrase 'drill into one user's activity' only weakly implies the use case.

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

All Flowlines - MCP Analytics tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?