Track what someone did since the last handoff, net against disk, plus edits outside PerMark; filter by person, outside changes, or a sequence/time.
What the person did since the last hand-off (net, checked against disk) + changes outside PerMark.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | No | ||
| limit | No | Rows 1..200, default 50 (not for the package). | |
| since | No | `handoff` (default: the package handed off), a seq, or an ISO time. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds that results are 'net, checked against disk' and include changes 'outside PerMark', hinting at deduplication and cross-boundary tracking, but it does not explain return format, pagination, or the precise meaning of 'net'. With annotations reducing the burden, this is a moderate addition.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme terseness introduces jargon like 'net' and 'hand-off' that may not be self-evident, trading clarity for brevity.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must carry the full burden of explaining what the tool returns. It does not describe the response structure, how rows are formatted, or what the different 'by' modes return, leaving significant gaps for a tool with three parameters and multiple modes.
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 coverage is 67%: 'limit' and 'since' have clear descriptions, but the 'by' enum values 'person' and 'outside' are not explained in the schema or description. The description provides no additional parameter context beyond what the schema already states.
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 conveys that the tool reports a person's activity since a hand-off and changes outside PerMark, giving a specific resource and scope. However, it lacks a clear action verb and does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like get_context or list_unread, leaving the agent to infer when 'activity' is the right call.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_context, list_unread, or map. The description does not state prerequisites or scenarios where activity is preferable to searching or listing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.