Retrieve a speech-to-text transcript by its unique transcription ID, so you can fetch the exact text and metadata of a prior ElevenLabs transcription.
Get Transcript By Id
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| transcription_id | Yes | The unique ID of the transcript to retrieve |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds nothing beyond those annotations — no note on permissions, ID format, or what happens for an unknown/invalid ID. With annotations present the bar is lower, but zero contribution warrants a low score.
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?
It is a single short phrase with no wasted words, so it is not bloated. However, its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined conciseness — it carries no substance to front-load.
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 full annotation coverage the description still omits what is returned (no output schema exists) and how a transcript relates to the many sibling transcript/dubbing tools. An agent can call it, but only by inferring everything from the name.
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% and the single parameter transcription_id is clearly documented in the schema itself, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description contributes nothing extra about the parameter (e.g., where the ID comes from or whether it is a workspace-scoped identifier).
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 is the tool name re-spaced with no added information: 'Get Transcript By Id'. It does not distinguish this from siblings like dubbing_transcript_get or delete_transcript_by_id, nor does it say what a transcript is in this system or what 'Id' refers to. A verb+resource is technically present, but only because the name was restated.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus the many other transcript-related siblings (dubbing_transcript_get, get_dubbing_transcripts, transcribe). No prerequisites, no scoping, no alternatives named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.