Marks an existing activity log as completed using its UUID. Use it to close tracked activities retrieved from the activity log list.
Completes an activity log.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activityLogUUID | Yes | You must specify a valid activityLogUUID obtained from get-activity-log-list. This tool requires an existing activity log. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.43Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this is a mutating, potentially destructive operation. The description adds nothing beyond annotations: it doesn't say what state change occurs, whether the log becomes immutable, whether completion is reversible, or what errors arise for an already-completed log. For a destructive tool 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The single sentence is short but under-specified rather than concise; it spends its only words repeating the name instead of front-loading scope, side effects, or prerequisites.
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 destructive mutation with no output schema and no annotations explaining consequences, the description should say what completing a log does to its data and what a caller should verify first. None of that is present, leaving the agent to infer the state change entirely.
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 description coverage is 100%, and the activityLogUUID description already explains it must be a valid UUID from get-activity-log-list for an existing log. The tool description contributes no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline 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 'Completes an activity log' restates the tool name almost verbatim; it names the resource but gives no specificity about what completing entails (finalizing, marking done, closing an open log). It does not distinguish from siblings such as start-activity-log or get-activity-log-list beyond the obvious verb.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisite statement, and no reference to alternatives. The only hint that the log must exist and come from get-activity-log-list lives in the parameter schema, not the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.