get_meeting_transcript| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes | The `id` of the meeting (from `search_meetings` results). | |
| on_behalf_of | No | An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / on_behalf_ofAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "An agency client's email, from list_agency_clients, to run this call in that client's account: their agents, settings, connected accounts, and credits. Omit it to act on your own account."
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the transcript is untruncated while the summary is capped at 6000 chars, and a no-match returns {'meeting': None}. It does not cover auth needs or rate limits, but for a read-only tool the disclosure is strong.
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 summary is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place; the structured summary/returns tags aid scanning. Slightly verbose, but the returns block is justified because there is no output schema to carry that burden.
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?
With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the returned meeting fields (id, provider, title, transcript, summary, share_url, meeting_url, attendees, speakers, duration) and the no-match case. An agent has everything needed to call and consume the result.
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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema (meeting_id sourced from search_meetings, on_behalf_of for agency-scoped execution). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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+resource ('Fetch the full, untruncated transcript for a single meeting') and explicitly contrasts with the sibling search_meetings result preview. An agent can tell it apart from search_meetings and get_run_transcript without opening a schema.
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?
Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use after search_meetings when the 10000-char transcript preview was cut off') and names the triggering condition plus a concrete example of the scenario. Nothing is left to inference about when this tool is selected.
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.