Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
roo-activity-logger

roo-activity-logger

by annenpolka
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

log_activity

Record structured activity log entries to track development events, decisions, and context with customizable types, summaries, and details.

Instructions

Record an activity log entry with structured data for tracking development activities, decisions, and context

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": {
      "type": "<type>",
      "summary": "<summary>",
      "intention": "<intention>",
      "context": "<context>",
      "logsDir": "<logsDir>"
    },
    "name": "log_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes
summaryYes
intentionYes
contextYes
logsDirYes
levelNoinfo
detailsNo
parentIdNo
sequenceNo
relatedIdsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It only states the basic action without disclosing behavioral traits such as whether it appends or overwrites, permissions needed, error handling, or side effects.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single concise sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured to include key details without sacrificing conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or logging behavior, leaving the agent without critical context.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not elaborate on any of the 10 parameters. It lacks individual parameter explanations, which is a significant gap for a tool with many required fields.

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?

Description clearly states the tool records an activity log entry with structured data for tracking development activities, decisions, and context. It uses a specific verb and resource, and naturally distinguishes from sibling tools (get_log_files, search_logs) which are for retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool, when not to, or mention alternatives. Usage is implied as the write counterpart to the read-focused siblings, but no direct guidance is provided.

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