get_meetingFetch the full record for a single meeting by its BMLT id_bigint.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | BMLT meeting id_bigint. | |
| root_server_url | No | Override the configured BMLT root server URL. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds 'full record' to hint at the return payload. However, it does not disclose error behavior (e.g., not found) or any operational details beyond 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence: 'Fetch the full record for a single meeting by its BMLT id_bigint.' Every word earns its place, no wasted text.
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?
This is a simple get-by-ID tool with annotations covering safety. The description indicates it returns the 'full record', which partially compensates for the lack of an output schema. It does not describe error handling but is sufficient for this simple case.
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 coverage is 100%, with both parameters described. The description only restates the id parameter as 'BMLT id_bigint', adding no new meaning beyond the schema. 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 the specific verb 'Fetch' and identifies the resource as 'a single meeting by its BMLT id_bigint', which clearly distinguishes it from sibling search_meetings and list tools.
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 clearly indicates this is for retrieving a single meeting when you have its id_bigint, but it does not explicitly state when to use search_meetings instead. This provides clear context without exclusions.
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.
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: fetching a single meeting, server info, formats, root servers, service bodies, and searching meetings. No overlap or ambiguity.
All tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_meeting, list_root_servers, search_meetings), making it easy for agents to predict and select tools.
With 6 tools, the set is well-scoped for a meeting directory server, covering essential operations without being overly sparse or bloated.
The tools cover the full lifecycle for a read-only meeting directory: listing metadata (servers, service bodies, formats), searching meetings with filters, and fetching details. No obvious gaps.