VHGENGINE

by app.railway.up.engine-production-3bdc

get_activity

Read-only

See what this account's agents are doing: in-flight ops + recent ops. Free.

    `in_flight` merges the live-ops registry (real stage/pct/eta mid-run) with your
    queued/running jobs; `recent` is the last completed charged ops. Every row has a
    human-readable message. The REST surface also offers an SSE feed at
    GET /v1/activity/stream. Args: recent_limit (1-100, default 20), api_key.
    Errors: unauthorized, rate_limited.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`api_key`	No	API key for this call. Omit to fall back to the Authorization: Bearer / X-API-Key request header (streamable-HTTP only), then the VHGENGINE_API_KEY env var (the stdio default). No key resolvable -> unauthorized.
`recent_limit`	No	Max completed rows in `recent`, 1-100. Does not limit `in_flight`, which always shows everything currently running.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recent`	No	The last completed charged operations, sized by recent_limit.
`in_flight`	No	Live operations: the running-ops registry (real stage/pct/eta) merged with your queued and running jobs. Every row has a human-readable message.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond the readOnlyHint: it explains that in_flight merges a live-ops registry with queued/running jobs, recent contains last completed charged ops, each row has a human-readable message, and it even mentions the SSE feed. It also discloses error conditions like unauthorized and rate_limited.

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?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the main purpose, then expands into details. The 'Free.' sentence and markdown formatting add some noise, but all sentences carry useful operational information (args, errors, SSE feed).

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a read-only activity tool with an output schema and an annotation, the description is thorough: it covers the distinction between in_flight and recent, mentions the SSE alternative, lists errors, and parameter behavior. There is no significant missing context that would prevent an agent from using the tool correctly.

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 100%, so the input schema already fully documents api_key and recent_limit. The description only repeats the arg names and limits, adding no new meaning beyond the schema definitions.

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?

The description clearly states the tool shows 'what this account's agents are doing' with 'in-flight ops + recent ops', providing a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself by covering agent activity rather than generic jobs/runs, though it does not explicitly name sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied through the description of the activity overview ('See what this account's agents are doing'), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of alternatives like list_jobs or list_runs, and no exclusions are provided.

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

All VHGENGINE tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct resource and action, e.g., signup vs. delete_account, create_key vs. revoke_key, generate_hooks vs. score_hook. Even similar tools like generate_hooks and generate_hooks_batch are clearly differentiated by single vs. batch operation.

Naming Consistency5/5

All 32 tools use a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., add_credits, create_checkout, revoke_key, list_outcomes) with no mixing of camelCase or other conventions.

Tool Count4/5

32 tools is slightly above the typical 15-tool range, but the domain is broad (account, keys, webhooks, generation, scoring, jobs, outcomes), and each tool has a specific purpose. No tools seem redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers most lifecycle operations: CRUD for accounts/keys/webhooks, generation/scoring with batch and async variants, outcomes reporting, and auxiliary tools. Missing explicit delete for hooks (expire automatically) and some update operations, but no critical gaps.

Resources

Need Help?