Transcrição completa com timestamps e atribuição de falantes de uma gravação.
Bulk support: accepts file_ids for batched execution.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | ||
| file_id | Yes | ||
| file_ids | No |
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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description adds what the response contains (timestamps, speaker attribution) and the bulk execution mode. It does not contradict annotations and provides meaningful operational context beyond them.
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?
Two short, front-loaded sentences: the core behavior comes first and the bulk note second. Every word earns its place with no repetition of the tool name or schema.
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 read-only retrieval tool, the description covers the output content and the bulk option, and the annotations cover safety. It is slightly incomplete on account/parameter interplay, but given the low complexity this is a solid, usable definition.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains file_ids as the bulk batch input and ties the transcript to a recording (file_id), but it leaves account completely unexplained and does not clarify the relationship or precedence between file_id and file_ids.
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 that the tool returns a complete transcript with timestamps and speaker attribution for a recording, a specific verb/resource pairing. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like plaud_get_recording and plaud_get_notes by naming the transcript content.
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 implies when to use the tool (when a transcript with speakers is needed) and how to batch with file_ids, but it never explicitly contrasts with alternatives or states when not to use it. The bulk-support note is useful usage context, but routing/exclusion guidance is absent.
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 Plaud-specific tools are clearly distinct, but 'marketplace' is a mega-tool that appears to cover search, invoke, install, subscribe, prompts, and bug reporting — overlapping with connect, toolkit_info, and the standalone report_bug tool. An agent could easily pick the wrong entry point for connection status, installed tools, or feedback.
There is a clean plaud_get_* / plaud_list_* cluster, but the platform tools mix verbs and nouns: authenticate, connect, marketplace, report_bug, show_version, toolkit_info. The naming is readable and the Plaud prefix helps, but the overall pattern is inconsistent.
Eleven tools is a reasonable count and mostly well-scoped for a Plaud integration plus MCP platform management. It is slightly heavy because 'marketplace' bundles many sub-capabilities into one tool while several small utility tools exist separately.
The Plaud retrieval surface covers user, recordings, recording details, transcript, and AI notes, which is sufficient for the main use case of accessing Plaud data. Minor gaps exist around delete/update operations, but recordings are created externally by the hardware, so read-focused coverage is acceptable.