List recent account or project activity events over a date range, with optional filtering by project ID.
List recent account or project activity events over a date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date_to | No | Inclusive end date. | |
| date_from | No | Inclusive start date. | |
| project_id | No | Limit to one project. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility. It only states the action and scope without disclosing behavioral details such as pagination, event types included, authentication requirements, or any limits. The minimal wording leaves the agent to infer read-only behavior from the verb 'List'.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundancy. Every word contributes to the core purpose and scope.
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 straightforward list tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient but lacks behavioral context such as return format, event granularity, or pagination. Since no annotations exist, more detail would be helpful for agents to anticipate results.
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 coverage is 100% with each parameter having a clear description (date_to, date_from, project_id). The tool description adds only a general mention of 'date range' and 'account or project', which slightly reinforces but does not significantly extend the schema information. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states a specific action ('List') on a distinct resource ('recent account or project activity events') with a date range scope. It differentiates from all sibling tools since no other tool appears to cover activity events.
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?
The description provides clear context on when to use the tool (for account or project activity over a date range) but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions. Given no direct sibling, the guidance is adequate though not exhaustive.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.