Read notes and comments for one Intervals.icu activity, returning each message's author, time, type, and text. Provide the activity ID to fetch read-only details.
Use to read the notes and comments on one activity: author, time, type and text of each message (read-only).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| activity_id | Yes | Activity id, e.g. i123456789 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the parenthetical '(read-only)' merely restates structured data rather than adding new context. The description does contribute the shape of the payload (per-message author, time, type, text), which is useful behavior detail beyond the annotations.
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?
A single sentence that front-loads the action ('Use to read...') and folds the returned fields into one compact clause. No filler.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the fields each message contains, so an agent knows what it gets back. It is nearly complete for a simple single-parameter read tool, though it omits ordering or volume expectations.
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?
Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 100% (activity_id with an example format), so the schema already carries the semantics. The description adds nothing about the parameter, making the baseline 3 appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb and resource: read notes and comments on a single activity, and enumerates the fields returned (author, time, type, text). This is clearly distinct from siblings like get_activity_details or get_activity_streams, though it does not name an alternative explicitly.
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 opening 'Use to read...' implies the usage context (retrieving activity commentary) but gives no when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no comparison to sibling tools that also surface activity data.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.