Check the progress of an automation run started by run_automation: overall status, plus each step with its status, model, duration and error. Poll this the way you would poll transcribe_status. Read-only. Requires an OAuth 2.1 user access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | The run_id returned by run_automation. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: the OAuth 2.1 user access token requirement, the polling nature, and the concrete returned fields (status, model, duration, error). This is useful operational detail not present in structured fields.
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 description is compact and front-loaded: purpose, result contents, polling guidance, and auth requirement are each stated in a short, direct sentence. No filler or repetition exists, and every clause contributes to correct tool usage.
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 present, the description adequately explains the return information (overall status plus per-step status, model, duration, and error). It also covers the critical operational context: when to call it, how to call it (polling), and the required auth. For a one-parameter read-only status tool, nothing essential is missing.
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%, with run_id already documented as 'The run_id returned by run_automation.' The description adds little beyond the schema, only reinforcing the relationship to run_automation. Since the schema carries the semantic weight, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Check') and identifies the resource ('progress of an automation run'), naming the originating run_automation tool. It clearly distinguishes this from other status tools like transcribe_status by framing it as the automation-run counterpart. The scope is unambiguous and functionally complete.
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?
The description provides clear context: this tool is used after run_automation, and it instructs the agent to poll it the same way as transcribe_status. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is enough for correct selection in most cases.
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.
The set contains several near-neighbor groups: deprecated aliases duplicate live tools, and docs/billing/financial tools have fuzzy boundaries. Individual descriptions are detailed and resolve most collisions, but matching the right tool among 39 still requires care.
Most tools follow a sensible verb_object style, but the transcribe_* group is inconsistent: transcribe_url/transcribe_upload are verb_object, while transcribe_status/transcribe_cancel/transcribe_delete are really status/cancel/delete operations renamed with a transcribe prefix. The deprecated transcription_status/transcription_url aliases add another naming convention, so the pattern is not reliable across the set.
39 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and creates an overwhelmingly broad surface spanning account management, billing, docs, API jobs, library organization, meeting bots, and automations. Two deprecated duplicates inflate the count further. This would be more coherent split into separate servers or at least pruned of deprecated aliases.
Core API transcription lifecycle is covered, and the library/meeting-bot flows have search, tagging, moving, and audio retrieval. However, there is no user-library deletion/rename, no OAuth-side full-transcript access, local upload is non-functional over the hosted endpoint, and webhook management is documented but not exposed as tools. These gaps force agents to work around missing operations.
