Gameball MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

getCustomerActivitiesCount

Count a customer's activities, optionally filtered by activity type, to measure engagement and inform customer segmentation.

Instructions

🔒 Get count

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": {
      "customerId": "<customerId>"
    },
    "name": "getCustomerActivitiesCount"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`customerId`	Yes
`activityType`	No	Filters activities by a specif

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Aug 10, 2026

TDQS

D1.3/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but 'Get count' reveals nothing about side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or return format. The lock emoji hints at security but is unexplained, adding no real transparency.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short but is under-specified rather than concise. '🔒 Get count' is a fragment that conveys no actionable information, wasting the opportunity to front-load useful content. It does not earn its place as a meaningful description.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the tool has two parameters, one required, and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. It provides no context about what the count represents, how filters work, or what the response looks like. This is a minimal helper that leaves the agent guessing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 50%, and the tool description provides no parameter explanations. The customerId and activityType parameters are not mentioned at all in the description, and the truncated schema description for activityType adds minimal value. The description fails to compensate for the low coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description '🔒 Get count' is almost entirely vague, failing to specify what entity is being counted or what resource it operates on. It restates the tool's name ('Count') without adding clarity about customer activities, distinguishing it poorly from sibling tools like getCustomerReferralsCount or getCustomerNotificationsCount.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as getCustomerActivities (which likely returns the actual list) or other count tools. There is no mention of preferred use cases or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server