htb_user_activityRetrieve recent Hack The Box owns—user/root flags and challenges—newest first, with date, points, and blood status.
Show recent owns (machine user/root flags and challenges), newest first. Rows: date, type (user/root/challenge), id, name, points, blood.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max entries (default 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). The description adds genuinely useful behavior: results are ordered newest-first, and it enumerates the returned row fields, which matters since no output schema exists. It says nothing about the 100-entry cap or rate limits, but that is minor here.
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 tight sentences with zero filler; the operation and its output shape are front-loaded, and the second sentence earns its place by describing columns absent from any other structured field.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies the missing return shape (date, type, id, name, points, blood) and sort order. Only the limit/pagination behavior is left to the schema, which is acceptable.
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% and the single 'limit' parameter is fully documented there with default and bounds. The description adds no paging guidance, so it sits at the baseline for a schema that does the work.
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?
Specific verb ("Show") plus a well-defined resource ("recent owns" = machine user/root flags and challenges), with the parenthetical clarifying the domain-specific term 'owns'. An agent can distinguish it from htb_user_progress or htb_user_info, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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?
No statement of when to call this versus htb_user_progress or htb_user_info, and no prerequisites noted. The 'recent owns, newest first' framing implies a feed-style usage, but the agent must infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.