Transcribe a recording. audio is an https URL or base64 audio.
Use this for short recordings when you want the literal text. For anything
past a few minutes prefer summarize_recording: it returns the transcript
too, plus who spoke and the tone, in ONE upload instead of two.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| audio | Yes | ||
| language | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations: it accepts an https URL or base64 audio, is intended for short recordings, and involves one upload. However, it does not discuss auth, rate limits, maximum duration, or whether the audio is stored or discarded, so behavioral depth is still limited.
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?
Every sentence earns its place: the core purpose and input format come first, followed by a concise routing rule and alternative. There is no filler or redundant wording.
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 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the core invocation details and tool-selection context well. The only notable gap is the undocumented `language` parameter and the lack of a precise length threshold, but the available information is otherwise sufficient.
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 required `audio` parameter is well explained with its accepted formats (https URL or base64), which is genuinely useful since the schema only says it is a string. The optional `language` parameter is not explained at all, and with 0% schema description coverage the description should have compensated for both 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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Transcribe a recording') and clarifies the output is the literal text. It simultaneously differentiates from the sibling summarize_recording, which is the closest alternative.
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?
Explicitly says to use this for short recordings when literal text is wanted, and to prefer summarize_recording for anything past a few minutes because it also provides speaker and tone info in one upload. This gives the agent concrete selection criteria.
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.