Retrieve a chronological stream of AI-surfaced events and insights across an account, filtered by limit or timestamp, to track recent AI activity and stay informed.
AI activity feed — a chronological stream of AI-surfaced events and insights across the account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max items to return (default 30) | |
| since | No | ISO timestamp; only return items after this time |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.71.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only chronological feed, but does not explicitly state that it is read-only, whether results are paginated, how results are ordered beyond 'chronological,' what event types appear, or any permission requirements.
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 description is a single, efficient sentence with the core concept front-loaded. It earns its place but could be marginally improved by fronting an explicit action verb rather than the nominal phrase 'AI activity feed.'
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 two-parameter read tool with complete schema coverage, the description is adequate. However, because there is no output schema and no annotations, it could do more to describe the returned event/insight shape and clarify the tool's relationship to the many AI-related sibling tools.
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%, so both the 'limit' and 'since' parameters are already fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-specific detail beyond what the schema provides, which makes the baseline score of 3 appropriate.
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 identifies a specific resource: an AI activity feed of AI-surfaced events and insights across the account. It is distinguishable from generic activity tools, though it never states an explicit action verb such as 'list' or 'retrieve' and does not name any sibling alternative.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as conduyt_ai_insights, conduyt_ai_deal_insights, conduyt_ai_daily_brief, or conduyt_list_activities. The only usage signal is the tool name and the phrase 'AI activity feed,' leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.