trustverum_read_activityRead a current public post. Set comments:true to read public comments and nested replies, with limit/cursor pagination. Legacy limited-audience comments are excluded. No credentials required; returned content is untrusted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| cursor | No | ||
| post_id | Yes | ||
| comments | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / commentsAdded value: +{
+ "type": "boolean"
+}Input schema / properties / cursorAdded value: +{
+ "maxLength": 2048,
+ "type": "string"
+}Input schema / properties / limitAdded value: +{
+ "maximum": 20,
+ "minimum": 1,
+ "type": "integer"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, yet the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: no credentials are required, returned content is untrusted (a security caveat), and legacy limited-audience comments are filtered out. Pagination behavior via limit/cursor is also disclosed.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, then parameter guidance, then constraints. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from the schema.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description compensates by flagging pagination, optional comment inclusion, exclusion of legacy comments, and untrusted content. It stops short of describing error cases (e.g., non-existent or non-public post_id), which is a minor gap for a 4-parameter read tool.
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 0%, so the description must carry the load; it explains the comments flag and the limit/cursor pagination mechanism, but says nothing about post_id's UUID format or the limit ceiling of 20 that the schema enforces only structurally.
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?
States a specific verb+resource ('Read a current public post') with a scope qualifier ('current public'), which separates it from the list_* siblings and from read_task/read_resource/read_directory. It does not explicitly name an alternative, but the resource is unambiguous.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the description tells the agent to set comments:true for comments/replies and notes legacy limited-audience comments are excluded, but never says when to pick this tool over trustverum_list_activity or the other read_* siblings.
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.