See what each agent did over the last N days, grouped by agent with tasks and artifact paths. Use it to pick up someone else's work or resume your own progress.
最近 N 天各家 Agent 干了什么（按 Agent 分组，含任务与产物路径）。接手别人的活、续接上次进度时用。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| days | No | 天数，默认 7 | |
| agent | No | 只看某个 Agent（可部分匹配），可省 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output grouping, included content (tasks and artifact paths), and the recency window. However, it does not mention side effects, sorting, data source, or other behavioral details.
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 description is two short sentences with no filler. The first sentence states purpose and output content up front; the second gives a concrete use case. Every clause earns its place.
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 simple read-only tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose, use case, grouping, and output content. It does not detail exact output formatting or behavior when no agent is specified, but the schema already covers the parameters, making the remaining gaps minor.
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%, so both days and agent are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces the agent-grouping idea but does not add substantive parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides.
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 states a specific verb+resource: returning what each Agent did over the recent N days, grouped by Agent and including tasks and artifact paths. This clearly distinguishes inventory_recent from its siblings by focusing on recent per-Agent activity.
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 explicitly says when to use the tool: when taking over someone else's work or resuming previous progress. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.