get_meeting_prepRetrieve a meeting record with your private prep notes and attendee list from your ZeroHrs account. Access the information you need to prepare for meetings.
Get a meeting record with the signed-in user's private prep notes and people.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes | Known Zero meeting id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds useful context beyond those annotations by specifying that the data is scoped to the signed-in user and is private, which implies authentication and user-specific behavior.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence that states the action, resource, and scope with no filler. Every word adds value.
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 simple one-parameter getter with fully descriptive annotations and a complete input schema, the description sufficiently covers what is returned: a meeting record with private prep notes and people. No output schema exists, but the description summarizes the return content well enough for correct 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 100%, and the single parameter meeting_id is already described as 'Known Zero meeting id.' The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Get a meeting record' with the additional scope 'signed-in user's private prep notes and people.' This clearly distinguishes it from related tools like get_transcript or list_meetings by identifying its unique content and access scope.
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 gives clear context for when to use this tool: whenever the agent needs the signed-in user's private meeting prep notes and people. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the phrasing makes the intended use unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.