get_meetingsRetrieve your meetings by title, status (scheduled/finalized), or time range.
OpenClaw-compatible meeting lookup for the signed-in user, with status, title, and time filters.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| after | No | An ISO date-time or a meeting or transcript id used as the time boundary. | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| before | No | An ISO date-time or a meeting or transcript id used as the time boundary. | |
| status | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the tool read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the description does not need to restate safety. It adds the signed-in-user scope and filter dimensions, but it does not disclose return values, ordering, or pagination behavior. No contradiction with annotations exists.
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 sentence that front-loads the operation, scope, and available filters with no filler or restated schema information. 'OpenClaw-compatible' is a compact compatibility qualifier rather than redundancy.
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?
With five parameters, no output schema, and low schema coverage, the description omits too much: no return shape, no pagination details, and no disambiguation from list_meetings. The annotations cover the safety profile, but the definition is not complete enough for an agent to call the tool with confidence.
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?
The schema only documents after and before; query, limit, and status are undocumented, leaving 40% schema coverage. The description's mention of status/title/time filters helps map query to a title search and before/after to time bounds, but it does not explain limit or the exact boundary semantics, so it only partially compensates for the schema gap.
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 identifies a specific operation ('meeting lookup') and a clear scope ('for the signed-in user'), and names the available filter dimensions. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the similarly named sibling list_meetings, so the agent cannot fully separate the two from the description alone.
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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative tool is named. The 'signed-in user' phrase implies a scope, but it does not tell the agent to prefer this tool over list_meetings or search_transcripts in a given situation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.