Skip to main content
Glama
bruhsb
by bruhsb

paperclip_get_activity

Read-only

Retrieve the audit trail activity feed for your company, with options to filter by agent, entity type, or entity ID.

Instructions

Get the audit trail activity feed for the current company.

Args:

  • agentId: string (optional) — Filter to a specific agent (example: "agt_abc123")

  • entityType: string (optional) — Filter by entity kind (example: "issue")

  • entityId: string (optional) — Filter to a specific entity (example: "PAP-42")

  • response_format: 'markdown' | 'json' (optional) — Output format (default: markdown)

Returns: Pagination envelope { items: ActivityEvent[], total, count, offset, limit, has_more, next_offset }. Each item: id, agentId, entityType, entityId, action, occurredAt, metadata.

Examples:

  • Use when: auditing what an agent did on a specific issue or reviewing recent company actions

  • Don't use when: you need issue comments — use paperclip_list_comments instead

Error Handling:

  • 401: authentication failed → check PAPERCLIP_API_KEY

  • 403: permission denied → verify PAPERCLIP_COMPANY_ID is correct

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
agentIdNoFilter by agent ID
entityTypeNoFilter by entity type (e.g. issue, approval)
entityIdNoFilter by entity ID
limitYesMax events per page (1–100, default 50)
offsetYesNumber of events to skip (default 0)
response_formatYesOutput format: 'markdown' (default, human-readable) or 'json' (structured)markdown
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true. The description adds value by detailing the paginated return structure, specifying error codes (401, 403) with remedies, and implying the tool is safe and non-destructive. Does not mention rate limits but overall sufficient.

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?

Well-structured with clear sections (Args, Returns, Examples, Error Handling). Each sentence adds value, though slightly verbose in the Returns section with detailed typing. Still efficient.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format. Covers parameter usage, examples, and error handling. Lacks mention of rate limits or data retention, but these are minor omissions.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description restates parameters with examples and default values, adding marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline score is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states 'Get the audit trail activity feed for the current company' with a specific verb and resource. Explicitly distinguishes from sibling tool paperclip_list_comments in the 'Don't use when' section.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Provides explicit when-to-use ('auditing what an agent did on a specific issue or reviewing recent company actions') and when-not-to-use ('you need issue comments — use paperclip_list_comments instead'), along with error handling hints.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/bruhsb/paperclip-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server