get_call_transcriptFetch a call transcript by record ID, returning each turn with role, content, and timestamp for review or analysis.
Just the transcript of a call, as a list of {role, content, timestamp} turns.
Requires scope calls:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The record id, e.g. "6a96a3ead6e886d42462dd3e". |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful context beyond annotations by specifying the required scope and the exact return structure. No contradiction with annotations.
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?
The description is extremely compact: two short sentences. The purpose and return format are front-loaded, and the scope requirement is cleanly separated. Every sentence adds value with no 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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool, this description is complete. It specifies the return format, the auth scope, and is backed by annotations covering safety. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly defines the output structure, so nothing essential is missing.
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 input schema fully covers the single id parameter with a description and example format. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description need not add parameter details. Baseline 3 applies as the schema carries the parameter documentation load.
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 clearly states the tool retrieves a call transcript and specifies the exact return format as a list of {role, content, timestamp} turns. The title reinforces the verb and resource. It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like get_call, but the meaning 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?
The phrase 'Just the transcript of a call' implies this tool is for when only the transcript is needed, and the scope calls:read indicates a prerequisite. However, there is no explicit statement about when to use this over get_call or list_calls, nor any exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.