read_transcript
Read-only
Read the recent Agora debate transcript.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
ai-neuro-philo-314
TDQS
A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a useful behavioral detail that this reads the 'recent' transcript, implying only the latest is returned, and it does not contradict the 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?
The description is one short, direct sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key action and resource are front-loaded.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter, read-only tool, the description is nearly complete: it states the operation and the specific resource. Since there is no output schema, a little more detail about the exact transcript format could help, but the low complexity keeps this gap minor.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters and the schema coverage is 100%, so there is little for the description to add. 'Recent Agora debate transcript' provides the only relevant scoping needed for a zero-parameter read.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose4/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and a specific resource ('recent Agora debate transcript'), making it clear what the tool returns. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_debate, but 'transcript' is distinct enough for most cases.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus siblings such as get_debate, get_standing, or argue. There are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative routing cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct role: argue submits a new argument, get_debate provides the debate context, read_transcript shows prior discussion, and get_standing displays reputation. There is no meaningful overlap or ambiguity between them.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern: get_debate, get_standing, read_transcript. 'argue' is a single verb with no object, which is a minor deviation but still clear and readable.
Tool Count5/5
Four tools is a well-scoped set for a focused collaborative debate server. Each tool serves a necessary part of the interaction loop: context, reading, participating, and checking standing.
Completeness5/5
The tool surface covers the full user workflow for the stated domain: learning the debate setup, reading the transcript, contributing an argument, and viewing earned standing. There are no obvious missing operations that would block participation.