get_meetingFetch one meeting by id with its phases and stages. For a retrospective it also returns the reflection groups and reflections plus vote/topic/task/comment counts. Uses __typename so you can tell meeting types apart. Parabol GraphQL: viewer.meeting(meetingId). Requires MEETINGS_READ.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meetingId | Yes | The meeting id. |
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?
The readOnlyHint annotation already indicates a safe read, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns nested phases/stages, retrospective extras, uses __typename for discriminating meeting types, and requires MEETINGS_READ. This goes beyond the annotation and helps the agent understand what will happen when invoked.
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 tight sentences front-load the core purpose, then add conditional return details and GraphQL/auth context. Every sentence contributes distinct value with no repetition or filler.
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 explains the returned structure (phases, stages, retrospective fields, counts), the GraphQL access pattern, and the required permission. This is sufficient for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result.
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 100%, so the meetingId parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description's 'by id' phrasing aligns with the parameter but does not add new semantic detail beyond what the schema provides. The baseline 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch one meeting by id', which clearly distinguishes this single-meeting fetch from list siblings like list_meetings and list_active_meetings. It also details what is returned, including phases/stages and retrospective-specific data, making the tool's scope unambiguous.
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 clearly states the tool fetches one meeting by id, which implies it is for retrieving a specific meeting rather than listing meetings. It does not explicitly name alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, but the single-meeting framing is sufficient context for correct selection.
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.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action: get_/list_ tools are clearly separate read paths, create_/update_/start_/add_ tools map to distinct mutations, and the two escape hatches are explicitly labeled. Even near neighbors like list_meetings and list_active_meetings are unambiguous.
Most tools follow a consistent pattern: list_/get_ for reads, create_/update_/start_ for mutations, with plural nouns for collections and singular for single resources. Minor deviations like add_comment, invite_to_team, and the parabol_* escape hatches prevent a perfect score.
With 21 tools, the server sits in the 16-25 range that feels heavy for an MCP surface. The breadth is somewhat justified because Parabol spans organizations, teams, meetings, tasks, and comments, but many tools are list/get variants of the same core entities.
Core read and write flows exist for teams, organizations, meetings, tasks, and comments, but there are notable lifecycle gaps such as no delete_task, no reflection update/delete, and no meeting end/update mutations. The parabol_graphql and parabol_query escape hatches help work around these gaps but do not make the curated surface fully complete.