Extract attendees, agenda items, and action items from a document the caller owns.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"file_path": "<file_path>"
},
"name": "extract_meeting_notes"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies a read-only extraction and an ownership constraint, but says nothing about error behavior for missing/unowned files, supported input formats, or rate limits — all relevant for a file-path-consuming tool with zero annotation coverage.
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?
One compact sentence that front-loads the verb and the extracted fields. No waste, though the brevity contributes to the gaps elsewhere.
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?
The enumerated fields effectively communicate what is returned even without an output schema, and the tool is simple (one param), but the file_path format and the sibling differentiation are missing, leaving the definition only minimally sufficient.
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 single parameter file_path has 0% schema description coverage (only a title, no description), and the description never clarifies whether it is an absolute path, workspace-relative path, or document ID. With one undocumented parameter the description needed to compensate and does not.
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?
Specific verb 'Extract' with three named resources (attendees, agenda items, action items) and a scoping clause ('a document the caller owns'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from the very similar sibling extract_stored_meeting_notes, which an agent could easily confuse it with.
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 'document the caller owns' clause hints at an ownership precondition, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the obvious alternative, extract_stored_meeting_notes. An agent has to guess which of the two extraction tools applies.
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.