gong_get_callGet full details for a specific call by ID. Returns participants, duration, call metadata, engagement metrics, and key moments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| callId | Yes | The Gong call ID |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Response from Gong API with full call details including participants and metrics",
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "callId": "8145046661234567890"
+ }
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context by specifying the returned data (participants, duration, metadata, metrics, moments), which helps the agent understand the tool's output beyond 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?
Single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, then lists returns. No extraneous content. Highly efficient.
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?
Given the tool has one parameter and an output schema, the description covers key return fields. It does not address error cases or edge conditions, but the context signals indicate output schema exists, reducing the burden. Slight gap in completeness, but adequate.
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 a clear description for callId ('The Gong call ID'). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline score 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?
Description uses specific verb 'Get' and resource 'full details for a specific call by ID'. It lists what is returned (participants, duration, metadata, metrics, moments), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like gong_get_transcript (transcript only) and gong_search_calls (list/search).
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 description implies use when needing comprehensive call details, but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives. It lacks guidance on differentiating from gong_get_transcript or gong_list_calls, leaving the agent to infer.
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.