Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Sliq

by com.getsliq
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

List prospect events

list_prospect_events
Read-only

Spans every campaign by default; pass agent_id to scope to one. To page further back, re-call with before set to the oldest returned event's occurred_at. Dict with count, a summary block (replies_this_week, accepts_this_week, posts_found_this_week, meetings_booked_this_week), and an events array. Events are newest-first; each is {id, kind, channel, owner_email, occurred_at, time_precision, subject_type, snippet, turn, prospect: {id, name, linkedin_slug, provider_id, title, company, has_conversation}, agent: {id, title} | null, queued_followup: {...} | null}. turn is 'user' when a draft awaits the user's approval, 'sliq' when a send is queued, else 'none'; queued_followup carries that drafted next step when one exists. prospect.id is null when the event isn't attributable to a tracked row.

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": "list_prospect_events"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindsNoSources to include — any of 'accept', 'linkedin_reply', 'email_reply'. Omit for all three.
limitNoMax events (default 50, capped at 200). Page older with `before`.
beforeNoISO 8601 timestamp cursor; only events strictly older are returned (pass a prior page's oldest `occurred_at`).
agent_idNoScope the events and the summary to one campaign. Omit for the cross-campaign feed. Note `turn` stays prospect-scoped — it can read 'user' off a draft awaiting approval under a different campaign for the same person; `queued_followup` is campaign-matched and won't.
on_behalf_ofNoA teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description
      Previous value: -"A teammate's email (one with conversation sharing turned on), or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."New value: +"A teammate's email, or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of / description
      Previous value: -"Read a consented teammate's activity instead of your own —\npass their email. Gated on that teammate's conversation-sharing\nsetting; a teammate who hasn't shared is rejected. Omit for your own.\nOr pass an agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run the call in that client's account, where none of the teammate limits above apply."New value: +"A teammate's email (one with conversation sharing turned on), or an agency client's from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / as_teammate
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Read a consented teammate's activity instead of your own —\npass their email. Gated on that teammate's conversation-sharing\nsetting; a teammate who hasn't shared is rejected. Omit for your own."
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / on_behalf_of
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Read a consented teammate's activity instead of your own —\npass their email. Gated on that teammate's conversation-sharing\nsetting; a teammate who hasn't shared is rejected. Omit for your own.\nOr pass an agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run the call in that client's account, where none of the teammate limits above apply."
+}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / agent_id
      Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "type": "integer"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "description": "Scope the events and the summary to one campaign. Omit for the\ncross-campaign feed. Note `turn` stays prospect-scoped — it can read\n'user' off a draft awaiting approval under a different campaign for\nthe same person; `queued_followup` is campaign-matched and won't."
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / task_id
      Removed value: -{
-  "anyOf": [
-    {
-      "type": "integer"
-    },
-    {
-      "type": "null"
-    }
-  ],
-  "default": null,
-  "description": "Scope the events and the summary to one campaign. Omit for the\ncross-campaign feed. Note `turn` stays prospect-scoped — it can read\n'user' off a draft awaiting approval under a different campaign for\nthe same person; `queued_followup` is campaign-matched and won't."
-}
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered; the description goes further by disclosing newest-first ordering, the 7-day summary block that rides along, the `before`-cursor paging mechanism, the `turn` state machine ('user' vs 'sliq' vs 'none'), and the edge case where `prospect.id` is null for unattributable events. It stops short of stating rate limits or how deep the feed goes, keeping it just under full marks.

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?

Front-loaded with the one-sentence purpose, then a usage block, then a clearly separated returns block — the ordering is right for an agent skimming. It runs long and the returns block re-derives field meanings that a formal output schema would normally carry, but with no output schema present that content earns its place; only minor tightening is possible.

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?

There is no output schema and no nested-object schema, so the description correctly assumes responsibility for the return shape and delivers it in detail (count, summary fields, event fields, turn semantics, nested prospect/agent/queued_followup). Combined with 100% schema coverage on inputs and clear sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to call this correctly on the first try.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all five parameters and the baseline would be 3. The description earns above baseline by framing `agent_id` as a default-vs-scope decision and by describing the paging loop ('re-call with `before` set to the oldest returned event's `occurred_at`'), which turns two independent fields into an actionable procedure. The `turn`-stays-prospect-scoped caveat largely duplicates the agent_id schema text, so it is not purely additive.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence names a specific verb and resource ('Read the cross-channel prospect activity feed') and enumerates exactly what is unioned (connection accepts, LinkedIn replies, email replies). It explicitly contrasts itself with `list_inbox_conversations` and with hand-stitching 'the LinkedIn, email, and queue readers', so an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling readers without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives concrete question templates the tool answers ('who replied this week', 'did anyone accept') and an explicit exclusion with the alternative named: 'For "who's waiting on me"... call `list_inbox_conversations` instead.' The default cross-campaign scope and the agent_id narrowing are stated as usage conditions rather than raw parameter docs.

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

All Sliq toolsInspect
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