Skip to main content
Glama
dev-in-black

OpenProject MCP Server

by dev-in-black
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

get_activity

Retrieve details of a specific activity in OpenProject by providing its ID to access task updates, comments, or project changes.

Instructions

Get details of a specific activity.

Args:
    activity_id: Activity ID

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
activity_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • src/openproject_mcp/server.py:234-241 (registration)
    MCP tool registration for get_activity, which delegates to comments.get_activity
    @mcp.tool()
async def get_activity(activity_id: int):
    """Get details of a specific activity.

    Args:
        activity_id: Activity ID
    """
    return await comments.get_activity(activity_id=activity_id)
  • src/openproject_mcp/tools/comments.py:144-160 (handler)
    Core implementation that fetches the activity details from OpenProject API using the client
    async def get_activity(activity_id: int) -> dict[str, Any]:
    """Get details of a specific activity.

    Args:
        activity_id: Activity ID

    Returns:
        Activity object with details
    """
    client = OpenProjectClient()

    try:
        result = await client.get(f"activities/{activity_id}")
        return result
    finally:
        await client.close()

Tool Definition Quality

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool retrieves details (implying read-only), but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication needs, rate limits, error conditions, or what 'details' includes. For a read operation with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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?

The description is appropriately sized with two sentences: a purpose statement and a parameter list. It's front-loaded with the core purpose. However, the parameter section could be more integrated, and there's slight redundancy in stating 'Activity ID' (which is in the schema title).

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'details' are returned, potential errors, or how this fits into the broader context of sibling tools. For a tool with no structured support, more descriptive context is needed.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds minimal semantics by specifying 'activity_id: Activity ID', but doesn't explain what an activity ID is, its format, or where to find it. This provides some value beyond the bare schema but doesn't fully compensate for the coverage gap, warranting a baseline 3.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with 'Get details of a specific activity', which includes a verb ('Get') and resource ('activity'). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_work_package_activities' (which likely lists multiple activities) by specifying retrieval of a single activity. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, so it's not a perfect 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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 versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when to use it over 'get_work_package' or 'get_work_package_activities', nor does it specify prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is needing an activity ID, but this is covered in parameters.

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/dev-in-black/openproject-mcp'

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