get_call_detailsRetrieve detailed information about specific Gong calls using their call IDs, including participants, topics, and trackers.
Get detailed info about specific Gong calls including participants (name, email, title, internal vs external), topics, and trackers. Provide call IDs from list_calls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| callIds | Yes | Array of Gong call IDs (max 20) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe, non-mutating read, so the description carries a lighter burden. It adds nothing about batching limits, partial failure behavior, or auth requirements beyond what annotations and the schema already convey, making 3 the appropriate baseline.
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?
Two tight sentences: the capability and the returned content come first, and the input instruction follows. No filler, though the parenthetical participant enumeration is slightly dense at the cost of skim-ability.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates what comes back (participants with name/email/title/internal-vs-external, topics, trackers), which is exactly what the agent needs to know for a detail-fetch tool. The remaining gap is that the 20-ID batch limit and any partial-result behavior are left to the schema.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents the type and the max-20 constraint. The description only adds provenance ('from list_calls'), which is a small but real supplement over the 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?
States a specific verb ('Get detailed info') and resource ('specific Gong calls') and even enumerates the returned sub-fields (participants, topics, trackers). It is clearly distinguishable from list_calls, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from get_transcripts, which covers a similar call-scoped area.
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?
"Provide call IDs from list_calls" gives workflow guidance on where the required input originates, which is genuinely useful. However, it offers no exclusions or routing guidance versus siblings like get_transcripts or search_calls, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.