Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
calagopus-mcp

calagopus-mcp

by BerdiiNN
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Get the panel-wide admin activity log

calagopus_get_activity
Read-only

Review panel-wide admin audit logs, newest first, to track user actions. Filter by user, search text, or page through results to investigate activity.

Instructions

Panel-wide admin audit log, most recent first. Optionally scope to one user with user. Requires activity.read.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "calagopus_get_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo1-based page number.
userNoFilter to a single user UUID.
detailNosummary returns the useful fields only; full returns the panel's complete record, which can be very large (a single server is ~15 KB, an egg ~13 KB).summary
searchNoFree-text filter applied by the panel across the record's searchable columns.
per_pageNoRecords per page (max 100).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering safety. The description adds the permission requirement 'Requires activity.read.' and the ordering 'most recent first', which are useful behavioral disclosures beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the 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?

Two sentences with no filler. The core purpose and ordering are front-loaded, followed by optional scoping and permission. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a read-only log tool with 5 parameters fully described in the schema, the description covers the purpose, ordering, permission, and optional scoping. It does not mention the return format or pagination explicitly, but pagination parameters are in the schema and the tool is safe (annotations). A brief note on the paginated list would make it fully complete, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

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 100%, so every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description only mentions the `user` parameter explicitly, but that adds no new semantics beyond the schema's 'Filter to a single user UUID.' Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full semantic load.

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 clearly states the verb (get) and resource (panel-wide admin activity log), and notes it is ordered most-recent-first. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_user_activity by being panel-wide and admin-scoped, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 description gives a clear context (panel-wide admin audit log) and an optional scoping to one user, but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when NOT to use this tool (e.g., when a user's own activity log is needed). The context implies the use case, but exclusions are left to inference.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools