Skip to main content
Glama
aliyun

AlibabaCloud DevOps MCP Server

Official
by aliyun
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

list_workitem_activities

Retrieve activity history for a work item, showing field updates, status transitions, association changes, and attachments with operator and timestamp details.

Instructions

[Project Management] List activity history for a specific work item. Returns changes including field updates, status transitions, association changes, and attachment changes, with operator and timestamp details.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
workItemIdYesWork item unique identifier
organizationIdYesOrganization ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv0.3.60
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • changedInput schema / properties / organizationId / description
      Previous value: -"Organization ID, can be found in the basic information page of the organization admin console"New value: +"Organization ID"
  2. Addedv0.3.35

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description indicates a read-only operation through 'List' and 'Returns', but does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or mention any permissions or rate limits. Without annotations, it is moderately transparent but could be more explicit.

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 concise and well-structured, consisting of a single sentence that covers the action, resource, and return details. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description explains what the tool does and what it returns, covering the essential context. It does not mention pagination, error handling, or optional parameters, but these are not critical for a simple list operation.

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 schema provides clear descriptions for both parameters (organizationId and workItemId), so coverage is 100%. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly identifies the tool's function: listing activity history for a work item. It specifies the resource (work item activity) and the verb (list), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_work_item_comments or list_work_item_attachments.

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 does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies usage when activity history is needed, but lacks concrete conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools