List project activities in reverse chronological order, filtered by source type and time cursor. Access is limited to project members, with permission-gated updates visible only to authorized roles.
列出项目动态。需项目成员身份。按创建时间倒序；带权限门（permissionGate）的动态仅对拥有该权限点（或 project:manage）的成员可见。 GET /api/projects/{id}/activities 项目由当前 API 密钥自动确定，无需传 projectId。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/openWorld, so safety is covered; the description adds real behavior beyond that: results are ordered by creation time descending, gated items are filtered by permission point (or project:manage), and the project is derived from the API key rather than supplied. It stops short of describing pagination mechanics or return shape.
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?
Roughly three short sentences, purpose front-loaded, then scope, then visibility rules; the raw endpoint string is mildly redundant but the rest earns its place with no padding.
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?
With no output schema, the description covers the essentials an agent needs: what it returns, auth requirement, ordering, and permission-gated filtering. Parameter details live in the schema, so the omission there is acceptable, though pagination behavior could be clearer.
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?
The description mentions no parameters at all, and the schema leaf nodes (limit/before/sourceType) carry their own descriptions, so the description adds no syntax or meaning of its own. The only tie-in is the ordering statement, which loosely supports the 'before' cursor without explaining it.
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 opens with a concrete verb+resource ('列出项目动态' / list project activities) and pins it to an exact endpoint (GET /api/projects/{id}/activities). The scope is clear, but it does not name or contrast any sibling (e.g. dashboard actions or todos feeds), leaving differentiation to the agent.
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?
It states the membership prerequisite ('需项目成员身份') and the permissionGate visibility rule, which implies usage context, but gives no explicit when-to-use / when-not guidance or named alternatives despite a large sibling toolset. Usage is therefore inferred rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.