Read your personalized Referna meeting recaps with an AI assistant.
Scored across 2 tools
The two tools are clearly separable: get_meeting_recap retrieves a single recap by session ID, while list_meeting_recaps enumerates the key owner's recaps with paging. No overlap in purpose or output, so misselection is unlikely.
Both tools follow the same snake_case verb_noun convention (get_meeting_recap, list_meeting_recaps) with a consistent 'meeting_recap' noun. The singular/plural difference is semantically meaningful, not a convention break.
Two tools is on the thin side even for a read-only recap service, and the surface offers no filtering or lookup beyond list-and-get. It is not a mismatch, but the set feels minimal.
The core read workflows (enumerate recaps, fetch one by ID) are covered, with paging and a sensible not-found case. Gaps are minor: no date-range filtering or search, and no way to reach related artifacts like transcripts.
Get one personalized Referna meeting recap by session ID. Returns not found when the key owner was not a participant.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes | Session ID returned by list_meeting_recaps. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by disclosing the access-scoping rule and its error outcome: a not-found result when the key owner was not a participant.
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 sentences, zero filler, with the core action and key front-loaded and the access caveat placed last where it matters.
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, idempotent single-item fetch with full annotation coverage, the description supplies the action, the key, and the notable failure mode. It stops short of hinting at what a 'recap' contains, but with no output schema and a trivially simple contract that gap is minor.
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?
With one parameter at 100% schema coverage, the schema already documents sessionId and its provenance. The description only restates 'by session ID', adding no format, casing, or length detail beyond the structured field.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get one personalized Referna meeting recap') plus the lookup key ('by session ID'). The singular 'one' paired with the sibling list_meeting_recaps makes the single-vs-list scope distinction clear without opening either schema.
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?
Usage is implied rather than stated: the sessionId schema note ('returned by list_meeting_recaps') signals the intended list-then-fetch flow, but the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use, prerequisites, or when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List the key owner's Referna meeting recaps, newest first. Each recap includes personalized text, which may describe next actions. Use offset to page through older meetings.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Number of recaps, from 1 to 50. Default 20. | |
| offset | No | Number of newer recaps to skip. Default 0. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world), so the bar is lower. The description nonetheless adds real behavioral context: newest-first ordering and the nature of the returned content ('personalized text, which may describe next actions'), which helps an agent decide whether the result is worth reading.
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?
Three short sentences with no waste; ordering and pagination guidance are front-loaded. The clause 'which may describe next actions' is slightly hedged but still informative about payload character.
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?
With 0 required params, full schema coverage, and annotations covering safety, the remaining burden is describing what comes back — the description does this (personalized text, next actions) and explains pagination. Minor gap: no signal on total volume or how to know when paging is exhausted.
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%, so limit and offset are already fully documented in the schema, making 3 the baseline. The description reinforces offset's pagination role ('page through older meetings') but adds no format, boundary, or default detail beyond the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Referna meeting recaps') with scope ('the key owner's') and ordering ('newest first'). It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_meeting_recap, but the plural/list framing makes the distinction inferable.
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?
'Use offset to page through older meetings' gives a usage hint for pagination, which is genuinely actionable. However, there is no statement of when to use this tool versus get_meeting_recap, and no preconditions or exclusions are given — usage is implied rather than specified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
get_meeting_recaplist_meeting_recapsYour InterMIND meetings, recaps, transcripts, channels and documents, from your assistant.
Search and read your recorded meetings: notes, action items, participants, transcripts.
Search recordings, summarize meetings, create clips, and automate workflows from your AI assistant.
Send AI bots to attend meetings on your behalf. Get recordings, transcripts, and summaries.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
