get_transcriptsRetrieve full transcripts for Gong calls, segmented by speaker with timestamps. Match speaker IDs to parties to identify who said what.
Retrieve full transcripts for Gong calls segmented by speaker with timestamps. Match speakerId against parties from get_call_details to identify who said what.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| callIds | Yes | Array of Gong call IDs (max 10) |
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 read, so the description need not restate it. It does add genuine behavioral detail — output is speaker-segmented with timestamps, and speakerId must be joined against parties — but says nothing about transcript availability limits, payload size, or pagination for up to 10 calls.
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 sentences, no filler. The retrieval capability is front-loaded and the speakerId join is a compact, high-value second sentence.
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 sketches the return shape (per-speaker segments with timestamps) and explains how to interpret speakerId, which is exactly what the schema cannot convey. It stops short of noting volume/availability caveats for a multi-call batch of transcripts.
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 description coverage is 100% and there is only one parameter, so the schema already documents callIds and its max-10 constraint. The description adds no syntax, ordering, or ID-format guidance beyond that, so baseline 3 is correct.
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?
Specific verb+resource (retrieve full transcripts for Gong calls) plus an explicit output shape (segmented by speaker with timestamps). It names get_call_details as the companion tool that supplies speaker identity, which separates it from list_calls, search_calls, and get_users.
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?
It gives implied usage context by pointing at get_call_details for speakerId resolution, which is a useful workflow hint. However, it never states when to use this tool versus search_calls or list_calls, nor any exclusions (e.g. calls without recordings).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.