Skip to main content
Glama
GethosTheWalrus

Temporal MCP Server

by GethosTheWalrus
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

get_activity_result

Retrieve the result of a standalone Temporal activity execution by activity ID, using optional run ID, namespace, and wait timeout.

Instructions

Get the result of a standalone activity

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
run_idNoRun ID for the standalone activity execution
timeoutNoOptional timeout in seconds while waiting for result
namespaceNoTemporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default
activity_idYesStandalone activity execution ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.10.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / namespace
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Temporal namespace for this operation; omit to use the server default",
+  "enum": [
+    "default"
+  ],
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Addedv1.9.0
  3. Removedv1.5.0
  4. First observedv1.3.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It only implies a read operation via 'Get' but does not disclose blocking/waiting behavior, how the timeout parameter changes behavior, error conditions, or permissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, its extreme brevity leaves it underspecified for a tool with a timeout parameter and no annotations.

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

Completeness2/5

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

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should explain result format, waiting semantics, and timeout interaction. It does none of these, leaving significant gaps for a tool that retrieves a standalone activity result.

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 the schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, which is the expected baseline when schema coverage is complete.

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?

States a specific verb (Get) and resource (result of a standalone activity), with scope limited to standalone activities. This distinguishes it from the workflow-focused sibling get_workflow_result without needing to read either schema.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no prerequisites. An agent cannot tell from this description whether to call this after start_activity, whether execute_activity already returns results, or when the activity must be complete.

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