Get recent activity events for a workspace. Who did what, when. Useful for understanding what's happened since you last looked.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The workspace slug. Accepts either the bare slug ('my-workspace') or the org-prefixed form ('my-org/my-workspace') as shown in the dashboard URL; both resolve to the same workspace. | |
| limit | No | Max events to return (default 20) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get recent activity events' and 'Who did what, when,' which is minimal. It does not mention whether it only reads data, whether there are auth requirements, rate limits, pagination, or any caveats about event visibility or scope.
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 two sentences long, front-loads the core action, and uses simple language. The second sentence ('Useful for understanding...') adds value by indicating the use case without being verbose.
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?
The tool has only two parameters and no output schema, but the description still leaves gaps: it does not describe the structure of the returned events, default ordering, or how the 'limit' parameter behaves. While it is a straightforward read tool, the lack of output schema means the description should have provided a bit more shape about what an 'event' contains.
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 the schema already explains both parameters ('slug' and 'limit') well. The description does not add new insight beyond what the schema provides, making it equivalent to the baseline for full coverage.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recent activity events for a workspace') and clarifies the content with 'Who did what, when.' It is distinct from sibling tools like get_workspace or get_doc, which focus on different resources.
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?
It provides clear context: 'Useful for understanding what's happened since you last looked.' This implies when to use it (when you need a history of activity), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. However, given the sibling list, the purpose is distinct.
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.
Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions that prevent confusion. The main ambiguity arises from send_message vs. the referenced but missing message_teammate tool, and add_column vs. update_surface for schema changes, but these are mostly clarified by the descriptions.
The naming convention is predominantly verb_noun with underscores (e.g., create_workspace, list_rows, update_doc). Exceptions like 'search' and 'address_book' (no noun) and the two-word 'react_to_comment' are minor deviations in an otherwise consistent pattern.
With 68 tools, the surface is far too large for an MCP server, exceeding the 50+ threshold for extreme mismatch. This volume creates excessive selection overhead for agents and suggests the tool set could be consolidated or split into focused servers.
The server covers broad functionality across workspaces, docs, tables, HTML, comments, files, webhooks, and billing. However, notable gaps exist: the explicitly referenced message_teammate tool is missing (preventing agent-to-agent waking), and there is no create/upload file tool or create API key tool, which creates dead ends in workflows.