Retrieve a newest-first activity history showing who did what, filtered by actor, project, or service, to review changes and trace actions.
Who did what, newest first.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| actor | No | User or agent name | |
| limit | No | ||
| project | No | Project id | |
| service | No | Service id |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the sort order ('newest first'). It says nothing about read-only safety, default record count, whether results are paginated, or scope across projects/services, all of which matter for an audit tool.
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 single fragment is front-loaded and free of waste, but it is under-specified rather than concise: there is room for one clarifying clause about scope or filters without bloat.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and four optional filters, the description should explain default behavior and filter combination, but it does not. An agent cannot tell how many records come back or whether omitting all filters returns the full audit trail.
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 75%, with limit undocumented, and the description adds no parameter meaning at all — not even that limit caps the number of returned entries or that actor/project/service act as filters. The one gap in the schema is left entirely unfilled.
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 phrase 'Who did what, newest first' conveys the resource (audit entries of actor/action) and the sort order, but it has no explicit verb such as 'list' and does not differentiate this from nearby tools like get_logs. An agent can infer the purpose from the name plus this fragment, but the definition itself only vaguely pins it down.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer get_logs or metrics, or what preconditions apply. The agent must guess from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
This server cannot be deployed