Page through a meeting transcript 25 turns at a time from a start point; use the suggested start value to continue reading until the conversation ends.
One page of a meeting transcript, 25 turns from turn number start. Call again with the start value it suggests to read on.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| start | No | ||
| meeting | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds non-obvious behavior: the page size is fixed at 25 turns and the response itself suggests the next start value, which is genuinely useful pagination context.
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 short sentences with no filler, and the pagination instruction is front-loaded after the core description. Slightly clipped/awkward phrasing ('from turn number start') costs a point but the size is right.
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 paged read tool with an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and it covers the key behavioral loop (page size plus how to continue). Missing only the meaning/format of the required 'meeting' identifier.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that 'start' is a turn number and that turns are counted from it, but 'meeting' (the required parameter) is never explained, nor is the default of 0 or the identifier format.
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 states a specific verb-implied action (fetch) and resource (one page of a meeting transcript), plus the page size of 25 turns. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with search_transcripts, so an agent must infer the difference, but the resource is unambiguous.
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 concrete continuation guidance ('Call again with the start value it suggests to read on'), which is real usage instruction. However, it never says when to prefer this over search_transcripts or list_meetings, so sibling routing is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.