s&box watch

Get s&box player activity history

get_activity_history

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read bounded player history for public games, dedicated servers, or one game. Older aggregate points marked partialCoverage total recorded games and may omit unrecorded games.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Default
`game`	No
`kind`	No	game
`range`	No	24h
`maxPoints`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`game`	No
`kind`	Yes
`range`	Yes
`apiUrl`	Yes
`points`	Yes
`summary`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`bucketed`	Yes
`available`	Yes
`durationMs`	Yes
`generation`	Yes
`canonicalUrl`	Yes
`partialCoverage`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedOct 1, 2026
- addedOutput schema / properties / durationMs / anyOf
```
Added value: +[
+  {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / durationMs / type
```
Removed value: -"number"
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / partialCoverage
```
Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "type": "number"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 200,
+  "type": "array"
+}
```
- addedOutput schema / properties / points / items / properties / partialCoverage
```
Added value: +{
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
```
First observedSep 1, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context that annotations cannot: that history is 'bounded' and that older aggregate points marked partialCoverage total recorded games and may omit unrecorded games, which tells the agent how to interpret incomplete results.

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?

Two tight sentences with no filler, and the core action plus scope is front-loaded ahead of the partialCoverage caveat. Efficient, though the second sentence is dense enough that it could be split for readability.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the partialCoverage caveat is helpful. However, with four parameters at 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves range options, maxPoints limits, and the game identifier syntax undocumented, which is not quite sufficient for a tool this parameterized.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden for four parameters. It loosely explains the 'kind' dimension ('public games, dedicated servers, or one game') and the bounded nature of results, but never mentions the 'range' enum values, the maxPoints bound, or the game identifier format, leaving real gaps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Read bounded player history') and names the scope (public games, dedicated servers, or one game). This is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_server or get_ecosystem_snapshot, so the agent must infer the boundary.

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?

The phrase 'for public games, dedicated servers, or one game' implies the situations this tool covers and loosely maps to the 'kind' parameter, but there is no explicit when-to-use versus alternatives and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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

All s&box watch 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?