Search and review your account's activity log, including sign-ins, VPS changes, and IP updates, newest first.
List this account's activity log — every action taken on the account or its VPS instances (sign-ins, VM power/create/ destroy, IP/volume changes, SSH key changes, ...), newest first. search (optional) matches action/description/IP address.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| search | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable context: it lists the scope of actions included, specifies 'newest first' ordering, and explains the search parameter behavior. This goes beyond what annotations provide.
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?
Two well-structured sentences: the first is front-loaded with purpose and scope, the second explains the parameter. No fluff or redundancy. Every sentence earns its place.
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 simple read-only list tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavior: what is returned (a list newest-first) and the examples of included events. It does not detail the exact fields of each log entry, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and annotation-covered safety.
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?
The only parameter 'search' has no schema description, but the tool description fully compensates by stating it 'matches action/description/IP address.' This gives clear semantics, including that it's optional. The description adds all necessary meaning beyond the raw schema.
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 clearly states the tool lists the account's activity log with a specific verb (List) and resource (activity log), and enumerates the actions covered (sign-ins, VM changes, etc.). This distinguishes it from siblings like billing or invoice tools, which have different purposes.
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?
The description provides clear context: it is the comprehensive audit trail for the account and VPS instances. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but no sibling tool serves the same function, so exclusion is unnecessary. The context is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.