Search every meeting transcript by case-insensitive keyword to find matching turns with meeting ID and timestamp.
Case-insensitive substring search across every transcript. Returns each matching turn with its meeting id and timestamp, text capped.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | 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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail: matching is case-insensitive substring (not regex/fuzzy), each matching turn is returned, and text is capped — the cap being a limitation the agent should know about.
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, front-loaded with the matching semantics and followed by the return shape. No filler.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be enumerated in depth; annotations already cover the safety profile. Combined with the matching semantics and cap disclosure, the description gives an agent everything needed to call it correctly.
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 single query parameter has 0% schema description coverage, so the description must carry the semantic load — and it does, clarifying that the input is treated as a case-insensitive substring rather than a regex or exact-match. It stops short of stating any length limits or escaping rules.
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 (case-insensitive substring search) and resource (every transcript), with scope 'across every transcript' that sets it apart from the single-transcript sibling get_transcript. It does not name siblings explicitly, so it falls just short of a 5.
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?
Usage is implied by the scope phrase ('across every transcript'), which suggests a broad search rather than fetching one transcript. However there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or reference to get_transcript/list_meetings as alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.