ChatGPT2LocalBridge

by Harzva

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Local

Bridge Activity

bridge.activity

Read-only

Retrieve recent tool-call records and audit logs to review actions requested by ChatGPT on your local system.

Instructions

Read recent local bridge tool-call records and audit events. Use this to inspect what ChatGPT actually asked the MCP server to do.

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": "bridge.activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`includeAudit`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`toolCalls`	Yes
`auditEvents`	Yes
`dataDir`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the read-only nature is clear. The description adds context about the data being 'recent' and covering 'audit events,' but does not go beyond what annotations provide in terms of safety or side effects.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core function and followed by a practical use case. Every word earns its place.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description differentiates the tool from siblings and is adequate given the output schema exists. However, the lack of parameter documentation reduces completeness for a tool with only two optional parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the tool description does not explain the parameters (limit, includeAudit) or their effects. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to use these parameters effectively.

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 tool reads 'recent local bridge tool-call records and audit events' and provides a concrete use case: 'inspect what ChatGPT actually asked the MCP server to do.' This distinguishes it from sibling bridge tools like health, logs, and status.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description implicitly tells when to use the tool (to inspect tool-call records) but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or compare with alternatives. However, the context provided is sufficient for an agent to select it appropriately.

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