openproject-mcp

List work package activities

op_list_work_package_activities

List activities, including comments and changes, on a work package in chronological order (oldest first).

Instructions

List activities (comments and changes) on a work package, oldest first.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "op_list_work_package_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`raw`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0May 26, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses output ordering and that it includes both comments and changes. However, it does not mention pagination, rate limits, or whether the list is exhaustive, which would be helpful for a read operation.

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?

The description is a single sentence, very concise and to the point. It front-loads the key action and resource. However, it could add a brief note about parameter roles without becoming verbose.

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 list tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential purpose and ordering. However, it omits details about the activity items returned and potential filtering (e.g., by date). It is adequate but not fully complete.

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%. The tool description implies 'id' is the work package ID but does not explicitly state it. The 'raw' parameter is not explained at all. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema's property definitions.

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 verb 'list', the resource 'activities (comments and changes) on a work package', and the ordering 'oldest first'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like op_list_work_packages which lists work packages, not activities.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention when not to use it, prerequisites, or related tools like op_comment_work_package for filtering comments.

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