pinbridge

List activity logs

list_activity_logs

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the workspace audit trail: who did what, when, with what outcome.

    Use to reconstruct what happened to a pin or schedule, or to see
    changes made outside this session (dashboard, API, other agents). For
    current state use get_pin / get_schedule instead.

    Returns items (log entries with action, status, message, resource_type,
    resource_id, metadata, created_at) and next_cursor for the next page,
    null on the last page. Fails with validation_error for a malformed
    cursor or since value; unknown filter values return an empty page.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Entries per page.
`since`	No	ISO 8601 timestamp; only entries after this time.
`action`	No	Action name, e.g. "pin.publish_failed".
`cursor`	No	next_cursor from the previous page.
`status`	No	Outcome: "success", "failed", "queued", "canceled".
`category`	No	Category, e.g. "publishing", "configuration".
`resource_type`	No	Resource kind, e.g. "pin", "schedule", "board".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed9 schema fields changedSep 24, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / action / description
```
Added value: +"Action name, e.g. \"pin.publish_failed\"."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / category / description
```
Added value: +"Category, e.g. \"publishing\", \"configuration\"."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / cursor / description
```
Added value: +"next_cursor from the previous page."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / description
```
Added value: +"Entries per page."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / maximum
```
Added value: +200
```
- addedInput schema / properties / limit / minimum
```
Added value: +1
```
- addedInput schema / properties / resource_type / description
```
Added value: +"Resource kind, e.g. \"pin\", \"schedule\", \"board\"."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / since / description
```
Added value: +"ISO 8601 timestamp; only entries after this time."
```
- addedInput schema / properties / status / description
```
Added value: +"Outcome: \"success\", \"failed\", \"queued\", \"canceled\"."
```
First observedSep 23, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it documents the return shape, pagination via next_cursor, null cursor on the last page, validation_error for malformed cursor/since, and empty-page behavior for unknown filters. No contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is compact and front-loaded: purpose first, usage guidance second, return/error behavior last. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of what the annotations already communicate.

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, so the description correctly takes responsibility for explaining return values and pagination. It also covers key failure modes, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret its results correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all seven parameters. The description adds minor references to cursor and since behavior in error cases, but it does not substantially enrich parameter meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions. A baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 description states a specific verb and resource: 'Read the workspace audit trail: who did what, when, with what outcome.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from other list tools by framing it as an audit trail rather than a current-state listing, and it explicitly names alternatives like get_pin/get_schedule later.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: reconstruct past events or see changes made outside the session. It also names the alternative for current state ('For current state use get_pin / get_schedule instead'), making the selection logic unambiguous.

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

All pinbridge 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?