JobNimbus MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

jn_list_activities

Retrieve activity records (calls, emails, status changes) from JobNimbus. Filter by related entity and paginate using size and from parameters.

Instructions

List all activity records (calls, emails, status changes, etc.) in JobNimbus. Note: response key is 'activity' not 'results'.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "jn_list_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`from`	No
`size`	No
`related_jnid`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Absent annotations, the description partially reveals behavior: it mentions the response key 'activity' (not 'results') and lists included record types. However, it omits pagination semantics (from/size), sorting, filtering (beyond using related_jnid), and any side effects. The behavior is safe (read-only) but not fully transparent.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence immediately conveys purpose and scope. The second provides a critical note about response key format. Ideal front-loading and brevity.

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?

Despite good purpose clarity, the description omits parameter semantics (pagination, filtering), return value details beyond key name, error handling, or rate limits. For a tool with 3 parameters and no output schema, this is insufficient for an agent to invoke it reliably.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has zero description coverage for the three parameters. The description does not explain 'from', 'size', or 'related_jnid' whatsoever. It fails to add any semantic value beyond the bare schema structure.

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?

The description clearly states the tool lists all activity records like calls, emails, and status changes. This directly distinguishes it from sibling list tools for other entities (contacts, jobs, etc.). The verb 'List' and resource 'activity records' are specific.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like jn_list_notes or other list tools. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, limitations, or selection criteria. The only hint is that it lists 'activities' but does not help an agent choose it over siblings.

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