team_activityReview what your team did recently: new shared sessions by repo, handoffs waiting for you, who picked up what, and new comments within a chosen lookback window.
What the team did recently: new shares by repo, handoffs for you, who picked up what, and new comments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | Look back this many days (default 1) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful scope cues — results are personalized ('handoffs for you') and grouped by repo — but says nothing about result limits, ordering, or whether the aggregation spans workspaces.
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?
One compact sentence, front-loaded with the core concept and then the content categories. Slightly list-like and fragmentary, but nothing is wasted.
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?
For a read-only feed with no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned content categories. It still omits things an agent would want — ordering, pagination or truncation, and how 'for you' is determined — which leaves it merely adequate.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% and the single 'days' parameter is fully documented in the schema (1-30, default 1). The description's 'recently' loosely reinforces the lookback window but adds no format, timezone, or boundary semantics beyond the schema.
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 enumerates the concrete content of the feed (new shares by repo, handoffs, pickups, comments), which lets an agent tell it apart from the session-centric siblings like list_sessions or search_sessions. It stops short of a clean verb+resource statement ('What the team did recently' is a noun phrase), but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus list_sessions, search_sessions, or get_session, and no exclusions or prerequisites. The agent must infer that this is a cross-repo digest feed rather than a per-session lookup.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.