Skip to main content
Glama

Read a meeting transcript

get_meeting_transcript
Read-only

Read a meeting's transcript -- what was actually said in the room. Use this whenever someone asks about the CONTENT of a meeting: what was decided, who said what, what a number was, what someone committed to. get_meeting_agenda returns a meeting's structure; this returns its words. Long transcripts arrive one window at a time -- if next_offset comes back there is more, so keep reading before you answer. When photos comes back, it holds what was in images attached to the meeting (whiteboards, handwritten notes) written out as text -- treat them as part of the meeting's record and answer from them too. When has_transcript is false, say plainly that no transcript is attached rather than guessing at what was said. This tool is off unless the organization's Owner has enabled transcript reading; if it refuses, relay that plainly and say the Owner can turn it on in Settings, Redaction. Never imply the refusal is a bug or that you can work around it.

Tool call template

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": {
      "meeting_id": "<meeting_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_meeting_transcript"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
offsetNoCharacter offset to read from. Omit to start at the beginning; pass the next_offset from the previous call to continue.
meeting_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/destructive hints, but the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: windowed pagination via next_offset, the photos field surfacing image text, and an org-level gating flag that can cause refusal. It even prescribes how to relay a refusal, which is rare and valuable operational context.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and the sibling contrast before any of the edge-case handling. It is on the long side and the redaction/refusal guidance could compress, but each sentence carries distinct operational content rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the return-value burden itself — and it does, naming next_offset, photos, and has_transcript and explaining what to do with each. For a read tool with permission gating and pagination, an agent has everything needed to call it and interpret results.

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?

Schema coverage is 50% — offset is documented in the schema, meeting_id's uuid format is enforced structurally. The description reinforces the offset/next_offset continuation loop in prose, tying the parameter to the response field, which is meaning beyond the schema. It adds nothing for meeting_id, but that parameter is self-evident.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (read a meeting's transcript) and immediately qualifies the scope as the spoken content of the room. It explicitly contrasts with get_meeting_agenda (structure vs. words), so an agent can route between the two without inspecting schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit trigger ('whenever someone asks about the CONTENT of a meeting: what was decided, who said what'), names the alternative tool and the condition that selects it, and closes the when-not cases (has_transcript false, permission refusal). Nothing is left to inference.

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.

Resources