Activity Reporting MCP Server
Server Configuration
Describes the environment variables required to run the server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ADVOCU_ACCESS_TOKEN | Yes | Your Advocu GDE API access token |
Instructions
Guidance the server publishes about itself, which clients place ahead of the tool catalog so the model reads it before choosing anything.
This server publishes no instructions, or was last inspected before Glama recorded them.
Capabilities
Server capabilities have not been inspected yet.
Tools
Functions exposed to the LLM to take actions
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
| submit_content_creationC | Submit a content creation activity draft |
| submit_public_speakingC | Submit a public speaking activity draft |
| submit_workshopC | Submit a workshop activity draft |
| submit_mentoringC | Submit a mentoring activity draft |
| submit_product_feedbackC | Submit a product feedback activity draft |
| submit_googler_interactionC | Submit an interaction with Googlers activity draft |
| submit_storyC | Submit a story activity draft |
Prompts
Interactive templates invoked by user choice
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No prompts | |
Resources
Contextual data attached and managed by the client
| Name | Description |
|---|---|
No resources | |
TDQS
Scored across 7 tools
Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose focused on submitting different types of activities (content creation, googler interaction, mentoring, product feedback, public speaking, story, workshop). There is no overlap in functionality - each tool handles a unique activity category, making misselection unlikely.
All tools follow a perfect verb_noun pattern with 'submit_' prefix followed by the activity type. The naming is completely consistent across all 7 tools, using snake_case uniformly without any deviations or mixed conventions.
With 7 tools, this is well-scoped for an activity reporting server. Each tool represents a distinct activity category that would realistically need separate submission handling, and the count feels appropriate for the domain without being too sparse or bloated.
The server provides comprehensive submission coverage for various activity types, but there are notable gaps in the lifecycle. There are no tools for retrieving, updating, deleting, or listing submitted activities, which limits agents to only creation workflows without the ability to manage existing submissions.