Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
brief-mcp

brief-mcp

by MLDreamer
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Get Meeting Brief

get_meeting_brief

Generate a pre-meeting brief for one meeting by looking up its Google Calendar event, researching attendees, and returning profiles, talking points, and watch-outs.

Instructions

Generate a full pre-meeting intelligence brief for a single meeting.

Looks up the meeting from your Google Calendar, researches all attendees in parallel, and returns a formatted brief card with:

  • Attendee profiles (role, company, recent news)

  • Suggested talking points

  • Watch-outs and sensitivities

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_meeting_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
meeting_idNoExact meeting ID from get_upcoming_meetings (takes priority).
hours_aheadNoHow far ahead to look for the meeting (default: 24h).
meeting_titleNoPartial or full meeting title to look up.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavior: it looks up a specific calendar, fans out attendee research in parallel, and composes a brief card. It omits latency/cost expectations (parallel research implies a slow, expensive call) and any calendar-permission requirements, but the read-only, non-mutating character is clear from 'generate'/'look up'/'researches'.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded one-line purpose, then mechanism, then a tight bulleted list of what the brief contains. Efficient overall, though the output bullets partially duplicate a return shape that an output schema already covers.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a 3-parameter read tool with 100% schema coverage and an output schema, the description supplies the missing high-level picture: what is researched, in what manner, and what the resulting brief looks like. The main remaining hole is selection guidance among the many overlapping brief/meeting siblings.

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%, so the schema already documents meeting_id, hours_ahead, and meeting_title, including the priority rule for meeting_id. The description adds nothing about any of the three parameters, so it sits at the baseline rather than compensating.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Generate a full pre-meeting intelligence brief for a single meeting') and the single-meeting scope implicitly separates it from brief_all_today. However, no sibling is named, so it is not self-evidently distinct from the near-identical brief_with_history in the sibling list.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Pre-meeting' implies the timing context, and naming Google Calendar as the source implies the Outlook siblings (get_outlook_brief) are the alternative for other calendars. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not, and no routing against brief_with_history or brief_all_today, which overlap heavily with this tool.

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