@lodd/mcp-server

get_actor_activity

Retrieve the chronological event timeline for a specific actor hash, including properties and revenue. Ideal for analyzing individual actor behavior and attribution.

Instructions

Get the event timeline for a specific actor hash. Shows all events in chronological order with properties and revenue. The actor is an opaque identifier — Lodd does not know who it represents.

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": {
      "site": "<site>",
      "actor": "<actor>"
    },
    "name": "get_actor_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`site`	Yes	Site domain or UUID
`actor`	Yes	The actor hash to look up (from get_active_actors)
`limit`	No	Max results (1-1000)
`period`	No	Time period	30d

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.15Jul 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the actor is opaque and events are chronological with properties and revenue, but does not mention pagination, limits, error handling, or authentication needs.

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, front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence, no filler, concise and effective.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers basics but lacks details on output format, pagination, and error scenarios. More behavioral context would improve completeness.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% (baseline 3). The description adds value by linking the actor parameter to get_active_actors and explaining the output order, going beyond the schema.

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 retrieves the event timeline for a specific actor hash, specifies the output includes chronological events with properties and revenue, and clarifies that the actor is an opaque identifier. It distinguishes from siblings like get_active_actors and get_actor_retention.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description mentions the actor comes from get_active_actors (implied prerequisite) but does not explicitly state when to use this vs alternatives like get_actor_retention or get_event_counts, nor when not to use it.

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