memoket

get_transcripts_by_participant

Read-only

[content_fetch] Transcript lines associated with participant_ids in conversation_ids. Turns participant metadata into transcript evidence for exposed search results.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`participant_ids`	No	participant ids from search_recordings.participant_ids
`conversation_ids`	No	recording ids scoped by participant hits

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tool`	Yes
`result`	Yes	Tool-specific result payload; shape varies per tool (object for most; may be null/array/text for some). Intentionally type-unconstrained for strict-validating clients.
`took_ms`	No

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about 'exposed search results' but lacks details on pagination, auth, or rate limits.

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 concise sentences with no wasted words, efficiently using a tag for categorization.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

While output schema exists, the description does not explain the 'query' or 'limit' parameters or the logical link between the two arrays, leaving gaps.

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

Parameters2/5

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

With 50% schema description coverage, the description fails to clarify the 'limit' and 'query' parameters or the relationship between participant_ids and conversation_ids.

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?

The description clearly states it retrieves transcript lines filtered by participant_ids and conversation_ids, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_transcripts and search_recordings.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions mentioned.

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

All memoket tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a distinct aspect: metadata, content types (brief, summary, transcript), filtered transcript, listing, and search. No two tools overlap in purpose.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (get_*, list_*, search_*), making their actions predictable.

Tool Count5/5

Seven tools cover the retrieval scope without being too many or too few; each serves a clear function in the conversation management domain.

Completeness3/5

The server lacks direct fetchers for several result types from search (e.g., memory_atoms, segments, action_items), creating dead ends for agents that need to retrieve those details.

Resources

Need Help?