search_transcriptPROJECT-SCOPED: this call acts only on the explicit project_id and returns the project identity with its result. Find where something is said (substring + fuzzy over sentences).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | ||
| project_id | Yes | Required immutable scope for this call. Copy the id from list_projects/open_project/project_state; the active-project pointer is never used to guess. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it is project-scoped and returns the project identity with the result, which goes beyond the annotation. No contradictions, and the added detail is useful without being verbose.
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 sentences with no waste. The scoping constraint is front-loaded, and the functional purpose is stated succinctly. Every word earns its place, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.
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 simple 2-parameter read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, scoping, and a hint at return behavior (project identity). Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke it correctly.
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?
The schema provides a detailed description for project_id, but query has no schema description (50% coverage). The description compensates by explaining that query is a substring/fuzzy match over sentences, giving meaningful semantics beyond the bare parameter name. This adequately addresses the gap for both parameters.
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 clearly states a specific verb 'Find' with a resource ('transcript') and method ('substring + fuzzy over sentences'). It also specifies the project scope, distinguishing it from siblings like get_transcript (retrieval) and get_words (word-level access). The purpose is 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?
The description implies when to use the tool: when you need to locate occurrences of a phrase in a project's transcript. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the scoping note ('acts only on the explicit project_id') clarifies it is not a global search. An agent can infer appropriate usage, though explicit sibling differentiation 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.