Retrieve the number of standalone activity executions matching a filter query in a Temporal namespace.
Count standalone activity executions matching a query
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No | List filter query (e.g., 'TaskQueue = "my-task-queue"') | |
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Input schema / properties / namespaceAdded value: +{
+ "description": "Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default",
+ "enum": [
+ "default"
+ ],
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.9.0v1.5.0v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden but discloses little: it implies a read-only count but says nothing about permissions, result format, rate limits, or whether 'standalone' excludes workflow-scoped activities. The definition leaves meaningful behavioral questions unanswered.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb, scope, and filter condition all appear immediately with zero wasted words.
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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema and full schema coverage, the essentials are present. However, the description never clarifies what 'standalone' means relative to the many workflow/activity siblings or what the count result represents, leaving gaps an agent must infer.
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 100%, so the schema already documents both the query filter (with an example) and the namespace enum. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond 'matching a query', so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Count ... activity executions') plus scope ('standalone', 'matching a query'), which is clearer than a bare restatement. It distinguishes the counting purpose from the listing sibling list_activities, but never names that sibling explicitly.
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?
No when-to-use guidance is given. The agent is not told when to prefer count_activities over list_activities or query_workflow, nor whether it requires a query to be meaningful. Usage is only implied by 'matching a query'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.