jules-mcp

by yasserbousrih

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

jules_get_activity

Fetch a single activity event payload by session ID and activity ID to inspect task details and troubleshoot execution.

Instructions

Retrieve a single specific activity event payload by its session ID and activity ID.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "jules_get_activity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`session_id`	Yes	The session ID or resource name.
`activity_id`	Yes	The unique activity ID (e.g. 'ade961768a5242ae88ec37948a978d2e').

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.5.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The verb 'Retrieve' signals a read-only fetch, and the description narrows the scope to a single payload, which is useful. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, but it does not mention error behavior, response format, or any side-effect caveats.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that states the action, object, and required identifiers with no filler. Every word earns its place.

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 two-parameter read operation, the description plus fully documented schema cover the essential call requirements. The lack of an output schema is partially mitigated by the phrase 'activity event payload', though error and edge-case behavior are not addressed.

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 coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented by name and description. The description only restates that the tool uses session ID and activity ID as selectors and adds no extra format or constraint details.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific action ('Retrieve'), a specific resource ('single specific activity event payload'), and the identifiers that select it. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like jules_list_activities, but the word 'single' distinguishes the getter from listing operations.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage context is implied: use this when you already have both a session_id and an activity_id and need one specific activity payload. However, there is no explicit statement of when not to use it or which sibling, such as jules_list_activities, should be used instead.

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