Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Speechmatics MCP Server

Speechmatics MCP Server

by ArchieMcM234
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_transcript

Retrieve a transcript by its file path to review or search its contents. Works with transcripts generated by Speechmatics batch jobs.

Instructions

Read an existing transcript file

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "get_transcript"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesPath to media file OR transcript file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states 'Read', implying non-destructive operation, but fails to clarify behavior for edge cases (e.g., missing file, media file input handling) or return format. The discrepancy between 'transcript file' and 'media file OR transcript file' remains unaddressed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words. It efficiently states the tool's core action and target resource.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is overly sparse. It fails to resolve the media-file/transcript-file ambiguity, explain what reading entails, or describe likely outputs or errors. This leaves the agent with insufficient context for reliable invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%: the file_path parameter is described as 'Path to media file OR transcript file'. The tool description adds no additional parameter guidance, but the schema already provides adequate meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('existing transcript file'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like transcribe_file which creates transcripts. However, the parameter description introduces ambiguity by allowing 'media file OR transcript file', which slightly muddies the purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No usage guidance is provided. There is no mention of when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any exclusions or prerequisites. The sibling names imply context, but the description itself offers no explicit direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools