jules_list_activitiesList activities for a Jules session to monitor progress and review actions taken by the coding agent. Provide the session ID to retrieve paginated activity details.
List activities for a Jules session
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pageSize | No | Maximum number of activities to return | |
| pageToken | No | Page token for pagination | |
| session_id | Yes | The Jules session ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral detail such as pagination behavior, ordering, or response framing. It restates the listing operation without disclosing anything beyond the structured hints.
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?
The description is a single short sentence with no filler or redundant clauses, making it easy to parse. It is concise, though it could carry more semantic content without becoming verbose.
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?
Annotations cover safety and the schema covers all parameters, so the core call can be constructed from structured data alone. However, there is no mention of the return shape, pagination flow, or when this list operation is appropriate, leaving some context gap.
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?
All three parameters are documented in the input schema, including descriptions for pageSize, pageToken, and session_id, so schema coverage is effectively 100%. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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?
The description states a clear verb-resource pair ('List activities') and scopes it to a Jules session, matching the title and the required session_id parameter. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling jules_get_activity beyond the implied list-versus-get distinction.
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 is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as jules_get_activity or jules_list_sessions. The description simply states the operation and leaves all selection context to the agent's inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.