Retrieve space activities filtered by ID range or activity type, with sort order and count controls to get targeted project updates.
Returns list of space activities
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of activities to retrieve | |
| maxId | No | Maximum activity ID | |
| minId | No | Minimum activity ID | |
| order | No | Sort order | |
| activityTypeId | No | Activity type IDs |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.15.1v0.13.1v0.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly=true, destructive=false, openWorld=false, so the safety profile is fully covered and the description adds nothing. It does not disclose pagination behavior, default ordering, default count, or what happens when no ID bounds are supplied — meaningful gaps for a list endpoint with five optional filters.
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 single sentence contains no filler, so nothing is wasteful, but it is terse to the point of under-specification rather than efficient packaging of information. There is no front-loaded scope, default behavior, or return-shape hint.
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?
A five-parameter, enum-bearing list endpoint with no output schema needs the description to explain paging semantics and the meaning of ID-range filtering. The description covers none of this, leaving the agent to reverse-engineer behavior from parameter names.
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 100%, with each of the five parameters documented (count, minId/maxId, order, activityTypeId). The description adds no syntax or semantic context beyond that — e.g., what an activityTypeId of -1 means — so the baseline 3 applies.
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 names a specific verb and resource ("Returns list of space activities"), so an agent can infer this is a read/list operation. However, it does not clarify what a "space activity" is (feed entries? audit log? status updates?) nor distinguish it from siblings like get_user_recent_updates or get_notifications, which plausibly return overlapping content.
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 guidance on when to call this versus alternatives, no prerequisite (e.g., a space context), and no mention of whether it is a feed-style listing with paging. The agent must guess based on the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.