List CRM activity records to see a log of user actions on documents and contacts. Use filters and pagination to pinpoint relevant activity.
List CRM activity records (log of user actions on documents/contacts). Read-only.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| skip | No | ||
| take | No | ||
| order | No | GraphQL order clause | |
| where | No | GraphQL where filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It states the operation is read-only, which is useful, but it does not disclose pagination limits, default ordering behavior, or how the 'where' and 'order' GraphQL clauses behave. For a list tool with pagination parameters and no output schema, these gaps matter.
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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the primary action and resource. The read-only note is placed right after the main clause. It doesn't waste words, though the second sentence could arguably be merged.
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 annotations, no output schema, and a low schema description coverage, the description leaves the agent guessing about return structure, pagination behavior, filtering syntax, and sort fields. A simple list tool still benefits from saying what a record looks like or how to constrain results. The current text is minimally viable but incomplete.
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 description coverage is only 50%, with 'order' and 'where' barely documented as 'GraphQL order/filter clause'. The description adds no further meaning about what values these clauses accept, the shape of 'where' grammar, or how pagination interacts with them. It fails to compensate for the undocumented half of the parameters.
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?
The description identifies a specific verb ('List') and resource ('CRM activity records') and clarifies it is a log of user actions on documents/contacts. It does not explicitly contrast with the similar sibling 'm3_activities', but the 'CRM' qualifier distinguishes it somewhat. A clear, non-tautological statement overall.
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 description provides clear context that it lists activity records and is read-only, implying safe, general listing use. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus sibling tools like m3_activities or m3_graphql, leaving some ambiguity for an agent choosing among similar list/query tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.