OpenPublica

Search meeting transcript

search_meeting_transcript

Read-only

Find exact quotes/passages inside one meeting's transcript.

Use this to pull direct quotations without loading a whole (often very long)
transcript: it fetches the transcript server-side, scans it, and returns only
the matching passages with approximate `start`/`end` timecodes when available.
Exact matches rank first, with a fuzzy fallback. Prefer this over
`get_meeting(include_transcript=true)` when you only need specific quotes.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`query`	Yes	The phrase or terms to find in the transcript, e.g. 'rent stabilization' or a speaker's exact words.
`meeting_id`	Yes	The meeting_id (from a search/list tool) whose transcript to search.
`max_passages`	No	Max matched passages to return (1-20).
`context_chars`	No	Characters of surrounding context per side of a match (0-2000).

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral details: server-side transcript fetching, returning only matching passages, approximate start/end timecodes, exact-match ranking with fuzzy fallback. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Four sentences with no filler: purpose comes first, then usage context, behavior, and alternative routing. Each sentence contributes necessary information for correct tool selection and invocation.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The description, complete input schema, and output schema together provide everything an agent needs: what the tool does, when to use it, how matching behaves, and the available parameters. No critical invocation context is missing.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with its own descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some behavior about matching and output passages, but it does not substantially enrich the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema already provides.

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?

States a specific verb ('search') and resource ('one meeting's transcript') and clarifies the intended result is exact quotes/passages. This clearly distinguishes it from loading a full transcript via get_meeting.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly explains when to use this tool: to pull direct quotations without loading a long transcript. It also names the alternative get_meeting(include_transcript=true) and states the preference condition.

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

All OpenPublica 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

A4.4/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool targets a clear, distinct operation: government discovery, meeting search, transcript search, document listing, and document reading are all cleanly separated. The three find_governments tools overlap in purpose but are differentiated by input type (name, ZIP, coordinates), and the descriptions explicitly call out when to prefer one over another.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent and predictable verb_noun pattern: find_governments_by_*, get_*, list_*, search_*, read_*, and discover_*. The qualifiers are descriptive and parallel, making the intended action and resource obvious from the name alone.

Tool Count5/5

At 15 tools, the set is at the upper end of the ideal range but every tool earns its place by covering a distinct capability across two related domains: meetings and government documents. There is no filler or redundancy; the count feels well-scoped for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness5/5

For a read-only public-records service, the surface is remarkably complete: government resolution by name/ZIP/coordinates, coverage, stats, meeting discovery/search/retrieval, transcript-level search, and document listing/search/reading all have dedicated tools. There are no obvious dead ends—every search path leads to a retrieval tool that can produce citable quotes, pages, or full transcripts.

Resources

Need Help?