Tulina

lemlist_get_activities

Read-only

Get activity events (opens, clicks, replies, LinkedIn actions…).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "lemlist_get_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`_org`	No	Org (id) de CET APPEL. `oto_list_orgs()`.
`limit`	No	Max events (default 100).
`since`	No	With `all_pages`, keep only what is newer than this date.
`_group`	No	Équipe (id) de CET APPEL, sous son org parente.
`offset`	No	Pagination offset.
`_run_id`	No	OBLIGATOIRE à chaque appel dès `run_start` ou `data_claim_next` : sans lui, l'écriture sur une ligne réservée est refusée. Hérité seulement si le serveur tient un run actif — n'y compte pas.
`lead_id`	No	Restrict to one lead.
`_project`	No	Projet (id) de CET APPEL — jeton PRIMAIRE. `oto_project(op='list')`.
`end_date`	No
`is_first`	No	Keep only the first event of its kind per lead.
`max_date`	No
`min_date`	No
`_instance`	No	Instance de connecteur PRÉCISE (un credential exact). `oto_instance(op='list')`.
`all_pages`	No	Walk the pages instead of returning one. Use `since` (ISO date) to stop early, and `max_pages` to cap the cost (default 50 = 5 000 events). Ignores the other filters — the paging route only takes the campaign and the date floor.
`max_pages`	No	Ceiling on the walk.
`start_date`	No
`campaign_id`	No	Restrict to a campaign.
`activity_type`	No	One event name (`emailsSent`, `emailsOpened`, `emailsReplied`, `linkedinInviteAccepted`, `paused`…).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

No schema history has been recorded yet.

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. Beyond that the description adds nothing: no mention that activity_type accepts many distinct event names, no note that all_pages ignores other filters, no pagination or volume behavior. For an 18-parameter read tool this leaves the behavioral burden on the schema.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is efficient but so brief that it borders on under-specification for a tool with this many parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has 18 parameters, no output schema, and a meaningful date/pagination/filtering surface, yet the description covers essentially none of it. An agent gets no help on how results are shaped or which filters combine meaningfully, which is inadequate at this complexity.

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 78%, so the schema already explains most parameters including the all_pages/limit/offset semantics. The description names event kinds that loosely map to activity_type but adds no format, defaults, or interaction details beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Get activity events") and enumerates example event kinds (opens, clicks, replies, LinkedIn actions). It is clear what the tool returns conceptually, but it does nothing to distinguish it from siblings such as lemlist_get_campaign_stats, lemlist_inbox, or lemlist_get_leads.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many adjacent lemlist tools, no prerequisites, and no mention of scoping (by campaign, lead, or date). The agent must infer typical usage entirely from the schema.

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

All Tulina tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?