hacknplan-mcp

recent_activity

Retrieve project activity events between two dates to see what changed, ideal for standups and weekly reviews.

Instructions

Project activity/event feed — the 'what changed' / standup view. Returns events between from and to (ISO 8601 dates/timestamps). If from is omitted it defaults to 7 days ago, to to now. Use for 'what happened this week', 'recent changes', daily standups.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "recent_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`to`	No
`from`	No
`project_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses useful behavioral details: defaults for `from` (7 days ago) and `to` (now), and the ISO 8601 format. However, it does not mention return format, sorting, pagination, or potential limitations.

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?

Three sentences, each adding value: purpose, parameter behavior, and use cases. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and contains no redundant phrases.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a simple query tool, it covers purpose, parameters, defaults, and use cases. No output schema exists, but the 'activity/event feed' concept is clear. Some details like event types or sorting are missing, but the description is sufficiently complete for typical usage.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains `from` and `to` with their defaults and ISO 8601 format. The required `project_id` is not explicitly described but is inferable from the tool's name and context.

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 identifies the tool as a project activity/event feed with the specific verb 'returns events' between date ranges. It differentiates itself as the 'what changed' / standup view, distinguishing it from simple list tools.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides explicit use cases: 'what happened this week', 'recent changes', daily standups.' This gives clear context on when to use the tool, though it doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

Deploy Server