Granola MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses return structure (notes, attendees, AI panels) and the side effect of include_transcript populating notes_plain. However, it lacks error behavior (what happens if meeting_id invalid), auth requirements, or rate limiting details expected for unannotated tools.

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?

Uses structured Args/Returns format that is scannable. The first sentence establishes purpose immediately. Minor inefficiency: documenting 'ctx: MCP context' adds no value since ctx is not in the input schema, suggesting template residue.

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?

Appropriate for a 2-parameter retrieval tool. Since an output schema exists (per context signals), the brief return value summary ('Full meeting details with notes...') is sufficient without enumerating all fields. Covers the essential contract for invocation.

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 compensate. It successfully adds semantics for both schema parameters: 'Meeting document ID' clarifies meeting_id, and 'Include full transcript in notes_plain field' clarifies include_transcript with specific behavioral detail about output field population. Note: 'ctx' is documented but not present in the input schema.

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 states a clear action ('Get complete meeting details') and resource (meetings), distinguishing it from sibling search/list tools by implying single-record retrieval via meeting_id. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with get_transcript or summarize_meetings regarding when to prefer each.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like list_meetings, search_meetings, or get_transcript. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow recommendations provided.

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