Skip to main content
Glama
patrickdaj

agent-activity

by patrickdaj
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

67%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: listing sessions, summarizing tool calls within a session, and tailing session transcripts. There is no overlap or ambiguity.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (list_recent_sessions, summarize_tool_calls, tail_agent_log), making them predictable and clear.

    Tool Count4/5

    Three tools is slightly low but appropriate for the narrow domain of inspecting agent sessions. The set covers the essential operations without superfluous tools.

    Completeness4/5

    The tool surface covers listing sessions, inspecting tool calls, and viewing transcripts. A minor gap is the lack of a dedicated 'get session details' tool, but the list tool returns metadata, and summary/tail provide depth.

  • Average 4.7/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 5 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior5/5

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

    Without annotations, the description fully discloses the tool's read-only nature, default behavior, and the fields it returns. It also mentions the configurable log root, providing complete behavioral context.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. While efficient, a slight rephrasing could reduce redundancy (e.g., 'newest first' repeated), but it remains clear and concise overall.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    For a simple list tool with an existing output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, behavior, parameters, and read-only guarantee. It is complete and leaves no ambiguity.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The description adds substantial meaning beyond the schema (which has 0% description coverage). It explains the repo parameter's filtering behavior and the limit parameter's default and maximum value, making the parameters clear.

    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 states the tool lists recent coding-agent sessions, newest first, with specific details on log root, limit, and fields returned. It distinguishes itself from siblings (summarize_tool_calls and tail_agent_log) by its unique purpose.

    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?

    The description explains when to use the tool (to list recent sessions) and notes it is read-only. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, though the sibling tools are sufficiently distinct.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavior: read-only, handles live sessions, returns structured errors, splits main/sidechain, and labels pending vs in-progress. This is comprehensive.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is detailed but every sentence adds value; it is front-loaded with the overall purpose. A slightly more concise phrasing could be used, but overall well-structured.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given no output schema or annotations, the description covers input, behavior, and output structure (including error handling). It is complete for an agent to understand and use the tool correctly.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 0% coverage (no description for the session parameter), but the tool description provides extensive detail on the parameter's meaning and acceptable values, fully compensating.

    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 states the tool summarizes a session's tool calls with per-tool outcomes, failures, usage. It distinguishes from siblings (list_recent_sessions, tail_agent_log) by its specific focus on summarizing tool calls.

    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?

    The description explains how to specify the session (full UUID, prefix, 'latest') and covers the live session case. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or compare with siblings for alternative usage.

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

  • Behavior5/5

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

    No annotations, so description carries full burden. Discloses read-only nature, error handling (returns dict instead of raising), default/max limit, chronological order, parameter behavior (prefix, 'latest', self-exclusion), and return format details. Comprehensive.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness4/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    Well-structured, starting with purpose then detailing parameters and error handling. Each sentence adds value, but length is appropriate for the complexity. Slightly verbose but no wasted words.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given no annotations and no output schema, description covers input, behavior, error handling, and return contents. Includes safety note (Read-only) and all parameter nuances. Fully sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters5/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema has 0% description coverage, so description compensates fully. Describes session parameter (UUID, prefix, 'latest', default behavior), limit (default 100, max 1000), and include_current (opt-in). All three parameters are clearly documented.

    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?

    Clearly states the tool returns the tail of a session transcript oldest-first. Distinguishes from siblings: list_recent_sessions lists sessions, summarize_tool_calls summarizes calls, while this tool specifically retrieves transcript entries.

    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?

    Explains when to use (get recent log entries) and special behavior like 'latest' keyword and exclusion of current session. Implicitly differentiates from siblings but could be more explicit about when not to use or alternatives.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

agent-activity-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

agent-activity-mcp-server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/patrickdaj/agent-activity-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server