Granola MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the output format (transcript segments with timing information), which is valuable, but fails to mention safety traits like whether this is read-only or requires specific permissions.

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 a clear docstring format with Args and Returns sections. The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence. The structure is efficient and appropriately sized for a two-parameter tool, though the 'ctx' reference in Args is slightly confusing.

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?

Given the tool has an output schema (so return values don't need full description) and only two simple parameters, the description is minimally adequate. However, the lack of annotations means it should explicitly state safety characteristics (read-only nature), which it does not.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description effectively compensates by documenting both parameters: meeting_id is clarified as 'Meeting document ID' and format specifies the enum values 'text or timestamped' not present in the schema. The mention of 'ctx' is extraneous since it's not in the input schema, but doesn't significantly detract from the actual parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the specific action (Get) and resource (full transcript for a meeting). The word 'full' effectively distinguishes this from the sibling tool 'summarize_meetings', indicating this returns complete text rather than a condensed version.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'summarize_meetings' or 'extract_action_items'. While the return value description implies it's for when timing information is needed, there are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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