Tripletex MCP Server

get_recent_activities

Retrieve recently used activities for a specific project in Tripletex to streamline time tracking and project management tasks.

Instructions

Get recently used activities for a project.

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": {
      "projectId": "<projectId>"
    },
    "name": "get_recent_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	Project ID
`employeeId`	No	Employee ID (defaults to token owner)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Feb 16, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden but only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits like read-only status, potential rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'recently used' entails (e.g., time frame, sorting). This is inadequate for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core action. It's appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, no output schema, and a read-like operation, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral context, making it insufficient for effective tool selection and invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, documenting both parameters clearly. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying a project context, so it meets the baseline of 3 without compensating for any gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and resource 'recently used activities for a project', making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like 'search_activities' or 'get_recent_projects', which could offer similar functionality, so it misses full differentiation.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'search_activities' or 'get_recent_projects'. It lacks context on prerequisites, exclusions, or specific scenarios, leaving usage unclear.

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