Get the activity log for a trip — shows who changed what, when
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries to return (default 50) | |
| tripId | Yes | Trip ID | |
| entityType | No | Filter by entity type |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the 'Get' verb is consistent with those. The description adds modest behavioral context by revealing the log's semantic content ('who changed what, when'), but it does not disclose ordering, pagination behavior, or whether caller collaborator permissions are required — so the added value beyond annotations is limited.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with zero waste: the verb and resource appear first, and the em-dash clause adds valuable detail about the log's contents. Every element earns its place.
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?
For a read-only list tool with a fully covered schema and safety annotations, this is largely complete: required and optional parameters are documented, and the description clarifies what the log contains. The only real gap is the absence of any return-shape or ordering hint, which is minor given there is no output schema and the tool's purpose is simple.
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 all three parameters (tripId, limit with default 50, entityType with a full enum) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
The description names a specific resource ('activity log for a trip') with a clear verb ('Get') and defines what the log contains: 'who changed what, when.' This meaningfully distinguishes it from all siblings — none of the other trip_* tools claim to return change history, so an agent can select it confidently.
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 description implies a use case (auditing what changed on a trip) but never states when to use this tool versus an alternative, and no sibling is named as a fallback. The context is clear enough to infer intent, but explicit routing guidance is absent.
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.
Most tools are clearly separated by resource type and action, making selection. The main ambiguity is between trip_item_add and trip_transport_add, since trip_item_add lists transport as a category but trip_transport_add explicitly says to always use it instead for transport.
The naming pattern is highly consistent: trip_<resource>_<action>. Minor deviations exist with bare verbs like search and fetch, and trip_review uses a verb-only style, but these are easy to understand within the larger pattern.
37 tools is a large surface that exceeds the typical coherence threshold. While the domain is broad, the count makes the server feel heavy and harder for an agent to navigate compared to a more focused toolset.
The toolset provides strong CRUD/lifecycle coverage across trips, items, notes, tasks, locations, collaborators, shares, and transport, plus review and search capabilities. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct collaborator add, no location update, and no item-level comment delete, but these are workable.