log_activityLog a note, call, email, or meeting against a company, contact, or deal to track sales interactions in your CRM.
Log a note, call, email, or meeting against a company, contact, or deal.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | ||
| content | Yes | ||
| entityId | Yes | ||
| entityType | Yes |
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 carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing beyond the payload types. It does not say whether the activity is permanently attached to the entity timeline, whether it requires write permissions, whether existing data is affected, or what is returned (e.g., an activity ID).
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the verb plus payload is front-loaded. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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 four-required-parameter mutation tool with zero annotations, zero schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is too thin. It should at minimum clarify what an entityId refers to and what the caller gets back or what side effects occur on the parent entity.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It effectively documents the two enum parameters by listing the accepted activity types and entity types, which is genuine added value. However, 'content' and 'entityId' receive no explanation of format, length, or which identifier space they draw from, leaving half the required parameters undocumented.
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 states a specific verb ('Log') and enumerates the resource subtypes (note, call, email, meeting) plus the target entities (company, contact, deal). It is clearly distinguishable from the CRUD siblings like create_contact or update_deal_stage, though it never uses the tool's own term 'activity' so the identity mapping is implicit.
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 indication of when to prefer this tool over alternatives, no prerequisites, and no mention of the sibling tools in the list. The agent must infer that this is for recording interactions rather than creating or modifying entities.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.