Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

OpenPublica

by com.openpublica
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Search meeting transcript

search_meeting_transcript
Read-only

Use unified stored-text search inside one currently public meeting.

Returns an optional current-text preview, without resolving timing. A text match
can lack a literal preview; use get_meeting(include_transcript=true) for full source
retrieval. This does not run a separate local scan or fuzzy passage ranking.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesAnalyzed words or a whole quoted phrase.
meeting_idYesCanonical meeting_id returned by a search/list tool.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / context_chars
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": 300,
-  "description": "Characters of surrounding context per side of a match (0-2000).",
-  "maximum": 2000,
-  "minimum": 0,
-  "title": "Context Chars",
-  "type": "integer"
-}
    • removedInput schema / properties / max_passages
      Removed value: -{
-  "default": 5,
-  "description": "Max matched passages to return (1-20).",
-  "maximum": 20,
-  "minimum": 1,
-  "title": "Max Passages",
-  "type": "integer"
-}
    • changedInput schema / properties / meeting_id / description
      Previous value: -"The meeting_id (from a search/list tool) whose transcript to search."New value: +"Canonical meeting_id returned by a search/list tool."
    • changedInput schema / properties / query / description
      Previous value: -"The phrase or terms to find in the transcript, e.g. 'rent stabilization' or a speaker's exact words."New value: +"Analyzed words or a whole quoted phrase."
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / maxLength
      Added value: +160
    • addedInput schema / properties / query / minLength
      Added value: +1
  2. First observed

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely useful behavior: results may lack a literal preview, timing is not resolved, and it is not a local scan or fuzzy ranking. These are non-obvious traits not derivable from the schema or annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action before the caveats. Every sentence carries content, though the 'separate local scan or fuzzy passage ranking' clause is slightly oblique and requires interpretation.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With an output schema present, return values need not be fully explained, and the description still flags the optional-preview behavior and the retrieval alternative. The 'currently public meeting' restriction is stated, leaving little an agent needs to call it correctly.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters (query as analyzed words or quoted phrase, meeting_id as canonical id). The description adds no parameter-level syntax or format detail beyond the scope constraint, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first sentence gives a specific verb and resource (stored-text search) plus a scope constraint ('inside one currently public meeting'), which is more precise than the bare name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the close siblings search_meeting_content or search_meetings_semantic, so an agent must infer the split.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It names one alternative with a condition ('use get_meeting(include_transcript=true) for full source retrieval'), which is real routing guidance. However, it never says when to prefer this over the other meeting-search siblings, leaving the main selection decision implied.

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

All OpenPublica toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources