list_eventsEverything that happened on your ACTs, in order, as GET /api/v1/events: give after to read on from the last one you saw.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | No | Your key, aak_…, when you cannot send it in the Authorization header. The sandbox only; on the live site the header alone is read. | |
| after | No | The last event id you read. | |
| limit | No | How many to return, 1 to 100; 50 if you say nothing. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "description": "How many to return, 1 to 100; 50 if you say nothing.",
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+}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 behavior beyond that: results come back 'in order' and the cursor is the last-seen event id, which is exactly the contract a polling agent needs.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the resource and scope, then appends the one operational hint that matters. Nothing is repeated and no words are wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description never says what an event contains (id, type, timestamp) or how to recognize the end of the stream, which an agent must guess before it can consume the cursor it is told to use. For a simple read tool with full schema coverage this is adequate but leaves a real gap.
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 'after' and 'limit' are already documented in the schema, giving a baseline of 3. The description restates the cursor semantics ('read on from the last one you saw') without adding format details such as where the id comes from in the response.
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?
Names a specific resource ('Everything that happened on your ACTs') and the underlying endpoint GET /api/v1/events, so the agent knows exactly what is returned and its scope. It implicitly separates itself from list_messages, but never names that sibling or any other, so sibling 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?
The clause 'give after to read on from the last one you saw' effectively tells the agent how to poll incrementally, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when to call this versus list_messages or get_act, and no mention of what happens when no events remain.
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.