Return a time-limited signed URL for the source audio or video of an existing transcription, so it can be handed to another tool or streamed. Valid for one hour and supports HTTP Range requests. This reads back media that already exists — it does not transcribe anything and costs nothing. Requires an OAuth 2.1 user access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transcription_id | Yes | The transcription ID (UUID). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the URL is valid for one hour, supports HTTP Range requests, costs nothing, and requires an OAuth 2.1 user access token. This is valuable information beyond the structured annotations.
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?
Three sentences, each earning its place: the first states the action and output, the second adds validity and HTTP behavior, and the third clarifies cost, read-only nature, and auth. Fully front-loaded with no redundancy.
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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description is complete. It describes the return value (signed URL), its validity, supported HTTP behavior, intended use, and authentication requirement. No critical calling information 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% for the only parameter, transcription_id, described as a UUID. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to since the schema already fully documents it. Baseline 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 and resource: 'Return a time-limited signed URL for the source audio or video of an existing transcription.' It clearly differentiates from transcription-creation siblings by stating 'it does not transcribe anything,' making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
It gives clear context for when to use the tool: when the media URL is needed to be handed to another tool or streamed. It implicitly excludes transcription creation by saying it reads back existing media and does not transcribe, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide a when-not-to-use statement.
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.
