Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
HAOps MCP Server

HAOps MCP Server

by tbranzov
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

haops_get_activity

See who changed what and when for any Module, Feature, or Issue in a HAOps project.

Instructions

Get activity log for a specific entity (Module, Feature, or Issue) in a HAOps project. Shows who changed what and when.

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": {
      "projectSlug": "<projectSlug>",
      "entityType": "<entityType>",
      "entityId": "<entityId>"
    },
    "name": "haops_get_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityIdYesUUID of the entity
entityTypeYesType of entity
projectSlugYesThe project slug (URL identifier)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.8.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided; description only mentions output content ('who changed what and when') but lacks disclosure of behavioral traits such as read-only nature, authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or result ordering.

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?

Two sentences front-load the purpose and key details. No redundant or unnecessary information. Efficiently conveys essential information.

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 read tool with three required params and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and what output to expect. It could mention default behavior or sorting but is largely complete.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema descriptions cover all three parameters with clear definitions (projectSlug, entityType enum, entityId UUID). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond confirming entity types, which are already in the schema. Baseline of 3 for 100% schema coverage is appropriate.

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 verb 'Get', resource 'activity log', and scope 'for a specific entity (Module, Feature, or Issue) in a HAOps project'. Distinguishes from sibling get_* tools by specifying the exact resource and entity types.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like haops_get_audit_log or other get_* tools. Does not mention when not to use it or what to use for broader activity tracking.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools