Retrieve the transcript text from a completed transcription job, using offset and limit to return only the needed slice and avoid flooding chat.
The words from a finished job. offset and limit return a slice so a long transcript does not flood the chat. Only text is stored.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| format | No | text | |
| job_id | Yes | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add real context: only text is stored (no timestamps or speaker labels), and offset/limit exist to avoid flooding the chat. Missing behaviors are the important ones though — whether the response includes job status, what a not-yet-finished job returns, and what the format parameter actually changes.
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, front-loaded with what is returned, then pagination rationale, then the storage constraint. No filler; the only weakness is that the last sentence reads as an afterthought rather than being integrated.
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 four-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers return content and pagination adequately. The unexplained format parameter and undefined failure/empty-result behavior leave the definition short of what an agent needs to call it reliably in edge cases.
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 0%, so the description must document parameters. It explains offset and limit as a pagination slice, which is genuinely helpful, but job_id is never mentioned and format (default "text", with no declared enum) is left entirely unexplained — an agent cannot tell what values it accepts or what non-text output means.
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 words from a finished job" conveys that this retrieves transcript text, and the sibling set (get_job_status, list_jobs, transcribe) makes the retrieve-vs-poll distinction inferable. But it never states a verb or names the resource outright, so the agent has to reconstruct purpose from context rather than read it.
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?
"from a finished job" implies the prerequisite that the job must be complete, which is useful usage signal. It does not explicitly say to check get_job_status first, nor what to do if the job is still running or failed, and it names no alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.