Retrieve detailed information about a standalone Temporal activity execution using its activity ID and optional run ID to inspect execution details.
Get detailed information about a standalone activity execution
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | No | Run ID for the standalone activity execution | |
| namespace | No | Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default | |
| activity_id | Yes | Standalone activity execution ID |
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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but the description says nothing about permissions, error behavior when the activity_id is unknown, or what the returned detail contains.
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 efficient sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is padded, though there is little structure to speak of beyond the one clause.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description is the only place to convey behavior and return shape, and it does neither. For a describe-style tool returning detail, this leaves meaningful gaps.
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 description coverage is 100% — all three parameters (activity_id, run_id, namespace) are documented in the schema, including the enum on namespace. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the resource name, 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 ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a standalone activity execution'), which is clearly narrower than list_activities or get_activity_result. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings, so it stops short of a 5.
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 guidance on when to use this versus get_activity_result, list_activities, or describe_workflow, and no prerequisites or exclusions stated. The agent must infer the selection criteria from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.