Mentio

Log activity

log_activity

Record that someone reached out to a person: an email, a DM, a call. The first contact claims an unowned person for whoever reached out and moves not_contacted to contacted; an existing owner and a later stage are kept (set them with update_person). memberId defaults to the signed-in user; with an API key and no memberId the activity is unattributed and claims nobody. Returns the activity and the person as they now read. With groupId the activity, and the owner and stage it moves, are that keyword group's own.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "channel": "<channel>",
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "log_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	Person id (aut_...), from list_people or a mention's authorId
`note`	No	What was sent or said, briefly.
`channel`	Yes	How they were reached: email, x, linkedin, bluesky, reddit, github, call, meeting or other.
`groupId`	No	Scope to one keyword group (grp_...): only people who mentioned that group's keywords, with that group's own tags, notes, mute, merges, activities and segments. Omit for the whole workspace.
`memberId`	No	The member who reached out (user id). Defaults to the signed-in member; an API key that omits it logs an unattributed activity.
`occurredAt`	No	When the contact happened (ISO 8601, or epoch ms). Defaults to now.
`idempotencyKey`	No	Optional. A unique value (a UUID) for this call: 1 to 255 visible ASCII characters, no spaces. Calling again with the same key and the same input within 24 hours returns the first result instead of doing it twice.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 8, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / idempotencyKey

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional. A unique value (a UUID) for this call: 1 to 255 visible ASCII characters, no spaces. Calling again with the same key and the same input within 24 hours returns the first result instead of doing it twice.",
+  "maxLength": 255,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "pattern": "^[\\x21-\\x7e]+$",
+  "type": "string"
+}

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026

changedInput schema / properties / groupId / description

Previous value: -"Scope to one keyword group (grp_...): only people who mentioned that group's keywords, with that group's own tags, notes, merges, activities and segments. Omit for the whole workspace."New value: +"Scope to one keyword group (grp_...): only people who mentioned that group's keywords, with that group's own tags, notes, mute, merges, activities and segments. Omit for the whole workspace."

Changed1 schema field changedOct 12, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / groupId

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Scope to one keyword group (grp_...): only people who mentioned that group's keywords, with that group's own tags, notes, merges, activities and segments. Omit for the whole workspace.",
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedOct 4, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only say this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds the substantive side effects: claiming unowned people, stage transitions, the fact that existing owner/stage are preserved, the unattributed-activity edge case with API keys, and group-scoped ownership/stage effects. The conditional idempotency via idempotencyKey does not contradict idempotentHint=false, since the default call is not idempotent.

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 core action and then layered with side effects and scoping; almost every clause carries non-redundant information. Sentences are long and dense, and the groupId sentence is somewhat awkwardly phrased, costing a top score.

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?

With seven parameters, no output schema, and a write operation, the description covers side effects, defaults, scoping semantics, and the return value ('the activity and the person as they now read'). Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly appears to be missing.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds genuine meaning: memberId's defaulting and the API-key unattributed consequence are framed as behavior rather than just field docs, and groupId is explained as making the activity and the owner/stage it moves belong to that keyword group. It stops short of describing occurredAt formatting beyond what the schema says.

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?

Opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Record that someone reached out to a person: an email, a DM, a call.' It is clearly distinguishable from siblings such as delete_activity and update_person, and the latter is named for the adjacent task.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It states the key operating condition for the first-contact case (claims an unowned person, moves not_contacted to contacted) and tells the agent that an existing owner/later stage is kept and should be changed with update_person instead. That is real routing guidance, though there is no explicit 'do not use when' exclusion.

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

All Mentio 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.

Resources

Need Help?