mcp-agent-hub

activity_log

Review the recent collaboration event stream—task dispatches, claims, and progress reports—to track agent coordination and audit what happened across the hub.

Instructions

查看最近协作事件流（派单、认领、汇报等）。

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": "activity_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`action`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 27, 2026

TDQS

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it does not say whether the stream is ordered newest-first, what scope it covers (room/hub/team), whether history is truncated, or whether any permission is needed. An output schema exists, so return-shape disclosure is not required, but ordering and scope are behavior an agent must know before relying on the results.

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 filler — the resource and the event examples come first. It is efficient, though the brevity edges into under-specification rather than true conciseness.

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?

For a no-annotation tool with 0% parameter documentation, the description should at minimum cover scope, ordering, and the meaning of 'action'. Only the event-kind examples are supplied; the agent must guess everything else.

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% for two parameters: 'limit' (default 50) and 'action' (default ''). The description never mentions either, so the agent gets no guidance on what values 'action' accepts (the parenthetical event names are the only hint) or how 'limit' interacts with 'recent'.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description gives a specific verb+resource (查看 / 事件流) and parenthetically enumerates event kinds (派单、认领、汇报), which makes the purpose concrete. It does not distinguish itself from adjacent siblings such as team_status, hub_stats, or my_assignments, which an agent may consider interchangeable sources of activity information.

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?

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent is left to infer that this is the read-only history tool among many listing/status siblings.

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