ppdm-mcp-server

get_activity

Retrieve full details for a specific PPDM activity by providing its activity ID. Use it to inspect backup activity records for monitoring and troubleshooting.

Instructions

Get full detail for a specific PPDM activity by ID.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`activity_id`	Yes	PPDM activity ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv4.2.2Nov 11, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read operation via "Get," but says nothing about what "full detail" includes, what happens with an invalid or unknown activity_id, or any permission/scope requirements. For a lookup tool with zero annotation coverage this is a meaningful gap.

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 or redundancy. It is efficiently sized for a one-parameter lookup, though the terseness is partly the source of the guidance gaps rather than a pure virtue.

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?

For a simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential action but leaves the return payload ("full detail") undefined and gives no error-handling context. Adequate as a minimum-viable definition, not complete.

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% with a single required activity_id, so the schema already documents the parameter fully. The description only restates that selection is by ID and adds no format, sourcing, or ID-discovery guidance beyond the schema.

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 definition pairs a specific verb ("Get full detail") with a specific resource ("PPDM activity") and a selection key ("by ID"), which cleanly separates it from siblings like cancel_activity or list_running_jobs. It loses a point only because "PPDM" and "full detail" are jargon/vague without further qualification.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_restore_status, list_* tools), nor any mention of prerequisites such as needing a valid activity ID from a prior list call. Usage is only implied by the word "specific."

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