Get transcript in a specific format - Returns the transcript in the requested format: - md: markdown (may include or exclude frontmatter based on include_frontmatter) - txt: clean text (best for LLM ingestion) - json: structured form (metadata + transcript text)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| guest | Yes | ||
| format | Yes | ||
| x-hapi-auth-state | No | ||
| include_frontmatter | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the behavior of include_frontmatter and describes the structure of each format's output (e.g., 'json: structured form (metadata + transcript text)'). This provides useful behavioral context, though it lacks details on error handling, authentication, or edge cases.
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 concise and well-structured, with a clear initial statement followed by a structured list of format options. Every sentence earns its place; no fluff or repetition.
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 tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description covers format and frontmatter behavior but leaves key parameters (guest, x-hapi-auth-state) ambiguous. It also does not clarify how this full-transcript tool relates to sibling chunk/metadata tools. The description is adequate for simple use but incomplete for full autonomous invocation.
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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'format' enum values and the 'include_frontmatter' parameter's effect, but it does not explain the 'guest' parameter (what identifier to use) or 'x-hapi-auth-state' (likely an auth header). Partial compensation for half the parameters.
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 gets a transcript in a specific format, listing three concrete format options (md, txt, json) with brief explanations. This is a specific verb+resource and differentiates from siblings like getEpisodesGuestMetadatajson (metadata only) and getEpisodesGuestChunks (chunks).
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?
The description provides usage context for each format (e.g., 'txt: clean text (best for LLM ingestion)', 'json: structured form'), which guides selection. However, it does not explicitly compare with alternative sibling tools or mention when not to use this tool.
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.
Tool purposes are mostly distinct, but there is overlap: getEpisodesGuestMetadatajson and getEpisodesGuestTranscriptformat (with json format) both return metadata, and getSearch/postSearch are functionally identical except for HTTP method. Descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.
Names mix run-together path-like camelCase (getEpisodesGuestChunksChunkIdtxt) with a different style for postSearch. The 'get' prefix is consistent but 'post' breaks the pattern, and the lack of separators makes names difficult to parse.
8 tools is within the expected range, but the granularity is high—episode retrieval is split across card, metadata, transcript, chunks, and chunk text tools, which could be consolidated without losing functionality.
The domain is a read-only podcast transcript service. It covers listing episodes, retrieving metadata, retrieving transcripts in multiple formats, and searching across metadata and transcript text. No essential operations are missing.