google-jules-mcp-server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get Jules Activity

jules_get_activity

Retrieve a specific activity from a Jules session by providing its ID. Use this to fetch details of a single activity within a session.

Instructions

Get a single activity from a Jules session by ID. Use jules_list_activities to find activity IDs.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>",
      "activityId": "<activityId>"
    },
    "name": "jules_get_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sessionId`	Yes	Session ID the activity belongs to
`activityId`	Yes	Activity ID to retrieve

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Aug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action and does not mention error handling, permissions, return format, or what happens if the activity is not found. This minimal transparency is insufficient for a tool with no annotations.

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?

The description is exactly two sentences: one stating the purpose and one pointing to a sibling tool. It is front-loaded, direct, and contains no unnecessary words or repetition.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple by-ID fetch with two well-documented parameters, the description covers the essential operation and provides a valuable pointer to the list tool. However, since there is no output schema and no behavioral notes about errors or response format, it is not fully complete.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for both sessionId and activityId. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Get a single activity from a Jules session by ID,' which has a specific verb, resource, and method of retrieval. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool jules_list_activities by specifying retrieval of a single activity by ID rather than listing activities.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes 'Use jules_list_activities to find activity IDs,' which provides an explicit alternative for a related task. This implies the tool is for when an activity ID is already known, offering clear context on when to use this tool versus the list tool.

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