read_a_meetingOne meeting as its page shows it: its title and when, its summary, the transcript as stored, who was invited, and whether the lead joined (with the sentence that was read from). Name it by its id (a meeting row's source_id from get_contact_activity).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, and non-open-world. The description adds value beyond that by disclosing the content shape of the returned record, including that the transcript is 'as stored' and the join detail includes the source sentence. No pagination or edge-case notes, so not a 5.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler, packing the return contents and the id guidance efficiently. Slightly dense with a parenthetical, but every clause earns its place.
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?
There is no output schema, but the description compensates by enumerating the returned fields, and the read-only annotations cover the safety profile. Adequate for an agent to call correctly, though it could note behavior when the id is unknown or not found.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must carry parameter meaning. It does define what the single id represents (a meeting's source_id from get_contact_activity), which is essential context a bare 'meeting_id' string does not convey. It omits format examples, keeping it from a 5.
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?
States a specific verb (read) and resource (one meeting), then enumerates exactly what is returned: title/time, summary, stored transcript, invitees, and lead-join status. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_a_paper, read_an_act, or read_a_card.
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?
It directs the agent to identify the meeting by id and specifies the id's origin ('a meeting row's source_id from get_contact_activity'), which is actionable routing guidance. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or alternative-tool comparisons, so not a 5.
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.