Retrieve activity logs filtered by collection, action, actor type, and limit to audit content changes and track agent or human actions.
List activity logs with optional filters for collection, action, actor_type, and limit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 50) | |
| action | No | Filter by action type | |
| actor_type | No | Filter by actor type | |
| collection | No | Filter by collection (contents, ideas, publications) |
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 must carry the full behavioral burden. It says 'List' (implying read-only), but does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, whether it returns all logs or is capped, or what the actor_type filter semantically means. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a notable gap.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the 'List activity logs' purpose and then enumerates filters compactly. No waste, though it could potentially include a default sort order or usage hint without fluff.
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?
Given 4 optional params, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is adequate but thin. It doesn't clarify return shape, pagination, or default ordering, which an agent would need to call this correctly against a likely long log stream.
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 both the schema and its embedded descriptions already document all four parameters with enums, limits, and defaults. The description merely names the same four filters without adding syntax, semantics, or examples. Baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 clear verb+resource: 'List activity logs'. It's not tautological and stands apart from siblings like list_contents or get_metrics. However, it doesn't differentiate itself from any specific sibling — there are no other activity-log tools, so the differentiation burden is light, but it also offers no explicit distinction.
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's no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, and no exclusions or prerequisites mentioned. An agent knows it lists logs but has no context for when this is the right call versus, say, get_metrics or list_contents. No 'when not to use' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.