Tokenrip

Read activity feed

activity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read authorized personal or team activity with keyset pagination and rendered attribution. A page may hold fewer than limit events when they are large; while nextCursor is not null, call again with cursor: nextCursor. subject narrows it to one subject's history: the id an event names, or an artifact's id or alias; an artifact subject is returned by its id, or with id null once it is purged forever (its title stays in the payload).

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": "activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`team`	No	A team's feed, by slug or id (current members only). Omit it for your personal feed.
`type`	No	Only these event types, a comma list (connection.created,credential.rotated); the account and team vocabulary only.
`actor`	No	Only this actor: an account id or alias, or 'system' for the platform's own events.
`limit`	No	Page size, 1 to 200.
`since`	No	Only what happened since: an ISO 8601 timestamp, or a number of days back (7 = the last week).
`cursor`	No	The nextCursor of the previous page (a malformed one is refused INVALID_CURSOR).
`subject`	No	One subject's history: the id an event names (a connection's, a credential's, a team's), or an artifact's id or alias. A subject with no events in this feed is an empty page.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	Yes
`partial`	Yes
`nextCursor`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedOct 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, and the description still adds real behavior: a page may be short of limit when events are large, the cursor loop terminates on null nextCursor, and a purged artifact subject returns id null while its title is retained. It stops short of describing retention windows or authorization scope in detail.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the core read statement and then pagination before subject nuance. The middle sentence is dense but every clause carries operational information; the parenthetical about purged artifacts borders on over-detail but is genuinely non-obvious.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, the description doesn't need to explain return shapes, and it covers the two things an agent would otherwise get wrong: short pages and the cursor loop, plus the subject edge case. It omits filter-combination semantics and any note on authorization/visibility limits of team feeds.

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 each of the 7 parameters is already documented, which sets the baseline at 3. The description only adds marginal meaning beyond the schema for subject (the purged-artifact id-null case); team/type/actor/since/limit are simply restated or left to the schema.

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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('Read authorized personal or team activity') and names the pagination and attribution model, so the tool's identity is unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from adjacent read tools in the sibling list (connection_audit_recent, workspace_changes, notification_mailbox), which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

It gives actionable in-tool guidance for paging ('while nextCursor is not null, call again with cursor: nextCursor') and explains how to narrow with subject. However, it never states when to prefer this over auditing/changes/notification siblings, so alternative selection is left to inference.

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

All Tokenrip 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.