List the signed-in person's meeting bots that are scheduled or currently running, plus any dispatches still queued waiting for a free bot. This is where the transcription_id, job_id and dispatch_id that stop_meeting_bot and cancel_scheduled_bot need come from. Read-only. Requires an OAuth 2.1 user access token.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces read-only behavior. It adds new context by specifying the OAuth 2.1 user access token requirement, which is not captured in annotations. The description also clarifies the scope (scheduled, running, queued dispatches), adding value beyond the structured metadata. No contradiction exists.
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 three sentences with no redundancy. It front-loads the primary purpose, then provides the critical usage context (source of IDs), and ends with read-only and auth notes. Every sentence earns its place, and the structure is efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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 zero-parameter, read-only listing tool with rich annotations, the description fully covers what the tool does, what it returns (the list of bots and dispatches), and the auth requirement. The output schema is absent, but the description adequately implies the return shape. No missing information prevents correct invocation.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the schema correctly shows an empty properties object. No parameter semantics are required.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List the signed-in person's meeting bots that are scheduled or currently running, plus any dispatches still queued waiting for a free bot.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by stating it is the source of identifiers (transcription_id, job_id, dispatch_id) needed by stop_meeting_bot and cancel_scheduled_bot, making its purpose unmistakable.
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 explicitly indicates when to use this tool: to obtain the IDs required by stop_meeting_bot and cancel_scheduled_bot. It also notes the tool is read-only. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for other scenarios, though the naming of consuming siblings provides strong context.
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.
