Retrieve sanitized process events from Yonote, Bitrix24, Tracker, and GitLab. Filter by query, period, systems, or project IDs to find relevant activity.
Return sanitized process events from Yonote, Bitrix24, Tracker, and GitLab.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| period_days | No | ||
| systems_json | No | ||
| project_ids_json | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds the 'sanitized' qualifier, a meaningful behavioral guarantee about output privacy beyond what annotations state. It does not cover rate limits or pagination, but for a read-only search the core safety and data-processing behavior is adequately disclosed.
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 filler or redundant phrasing. Every word earns its place.
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?
Although an output schema exists and annotations cover read-only status, the description omits parameter semantics and any usage context. With five optional filter parameters, the agent lacks essential information to construct a correct invocation.
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 description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain any of the five parameters. Terms like 'systems_json' and 'project_ids_json' are ambiguous without format examples, and even 'query' and 'period_days' are only loosely inferable.
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 uses the verb 'Return' with the resource 'sanitized process events' and explicitly enumerates the sources (Yonote, Bitrix24, Tracker, GitLab). This makes the purpose unmistakable and clearly distinguishes it from sibling search tools like gateway_work_search or gateway_knowledge_search.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool over related siblings, such as gateway_process_candidates_discover or gateway_work_search. It only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer all use-case boundaries and exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.