openphone_get_call_transcriptGet the transcription for a call by its id — dialogue segments with speaker, text and timestamps, plus overall status and duration. OpenPhone REST: GET /call-transcripts/{id}.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The call id (starts with 'AC'). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / $schemaPrevious value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds value by disclosing the response shape (segments, speaker, text, timestamps, status, duration), but says nothing about transcript availability latency, missing/empty transcripts, auth requirements, or error behavior for calls without transcripts.
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 compact sentences with zero filler: the purpose and return contents are front-loaded, then the REST endpoint and method are appended. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description usefully previews the returned transcript structure and the underlying REST call. What's missing for full completeness is any note on when a transcript may be unavailable or whether access is scoped to the caller's call history.
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% and the id parameter is documented in-schema including the 'AC' prefix hint, so the baseline is 3. The description restates the id lookup but adds no format or validation 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 (Get) and resource (call transcript) identified by id, and lists the payload contents (dialogue segments with speaker, text, timestamps, status, duration). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling read tools like openphone_get_call_summary or openphone_get_call_recordings.
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 by the name and the description ('by its id'), and the sibling list contains adjacent tools (get_call_summary, get_call_recordings), but the description never explicitly states when to prefer this tool over those or that the call must already exist. Adequate but not explicit routing guidance.
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.