See what's happening right now: active sessions, recent events, traces, and tasks being worked on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| team_name | No | Filter by team name (optional) | |
| user_name | No | Filter by user name (optional, partial match) | |
| project_name | No | Filter by project name (optional) | |
| recent_minutes | No | Time window for recent events in minutes (default: 30) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It mentions the types of data returned but doesn't specify defaults like recent_minutes=30, whether filters are exclusive/inclusive, or if there are limits on result sets. The read-only nature is implied but not explicitly stated, and return format is left ambiguous.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the core value ('see what's happening right now') and lists key content. No wasted words or redundant information.
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?
The tool is simple with no output schema and optional filters. The description gives a high-level summary and the schema covers parameters. However, it doesn't explain how the filtered activity is aggregated or whether results are grouped by type. For a multi-type data tool, a bit more context on output format would help.
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 schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, including types and defaults. The tool description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline applies. Parameter meanings are clear from the schema alone.
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 provides a real-time overview of multiple activity types (sessions, events, traces, tasks). It distinguishes from siblings like list_sessions or get_session_details by aggregating multiple data types into a single live view, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives.
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 guidance on when to use this tool vs other activity-related tools (get_session_details, list_sessions, log_trace, etc.). The description implies it's for a quick overview, but no exclusions or alternative suggestions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct resource+action pairs (e.g., create_task vs update_task vs delete_task), but the large number of list/get/search tools creates some potential confusion, especially between get_context, search_entities, and find_documents. Descriptions are detailed and help, but the volume makes navigation less clear.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (create_, delete_, list_, update_, etc.), with clear prefixes like add/remove and link/unlink. Deviations like 'whoami', 'find_documents' vs 'search_entities', and 'setup_organization' prevent a perfect score.
62 tools is far beyond the typical MCP server scope and overwhelms agents with too many choices. Even if each tool is individually useful, the sheer count makes it difficult for an agent to efficiently select the right tool, increasing the likelihood of misselection.
The domain is well covered for projects, tasks, teams, sessions, and notifications, but there are notable gaps: no update_document, no get_task (only list/update/delete), no get_user, no reject_invite, and sprint management lacks update/delete operations. Core CRUD is present for many entities, but not all.
