Retrieve detailed activity for a specific team member or branch, including commits, files changed, and time range for a given date.
Get detailed activity for a specific team member or branch, including commits, files changed, and time range
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| date | No | Date in YYYY-MM-DD format (default: today) | |
| branch | No | Branch name | |
| member | No | Team member handle |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden; 'Get' implies a safe read and the description discloses the returned content types (commits, files changed, time range). It says nothing about permissions, pagination, or result limits, which matters for a zero-annotation tool.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and its scope come first. The phrase 'time range' is slightly loose against the date parameter, keeping it out of the top band.
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?
For a three-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope and payload adequately. It could note that all parameters are optional or that omitting them yields a default scope, but nothing critical is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so member, branch, and date are already documented in the schema. The description maps loosely onto member/branch and hints at a time filter via 'time range', but it adds no format or default details beyond what the schema already states.
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 (Get) and resource (detailed activity) and scopes it to a team member or branch, plus enumerates the payload (commits, files changed, time range). It is clear enough to distinguish from list-oriented siblings like list_tasks, though it never names 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?
There is no guidance on when to pick this over team_overview, daily_summary, or track_branches, nor any stated prerequisites. The agent must infer the use case purely from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.