Retrieve the full transcript for a specific podcast episode by providing its title or partial title. Use this to access and search the complete conversation for deeper insights.
Get the full transcript for a specific episode by title. Use this when you want to dive deeper into a specific episode conversation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| title | Yes | The episode title or partial title (e.g., 'Mark Warner', 'OpenAI') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description itself must communicate behavior. It states that the tool returns the full transcript and identifies a target by title, which is useful. However, it does not disclose behavior for ambiguous or missing titles, response format, or pagination/truncation.
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 with the core action front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence adds usage context but is slightly generic ('dive deeper'), so it is concise but not maximally sharp.
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 lookup tool, the description plus schema covers the key invocation details: what to pass and what to expect back. It is not fully complete because there is no output schema and no note on how ambiguous partial-title matches are resolved, but complexity is low.
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 coverage is 100%: the title parameter is already described with type, partial-match indication, and examples. The description only says 'by title,' adding no new parameter-level semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
Description names a specific action ('Get the full transcript') and target ('a specific episode by title'), which clearly sets it apart from sibling list/search tools. The phrase 'full transcript' plus 'specific episode' gives the agent a precise mental model of the tool's output.
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 second sentence gives an explicit when-to-use signal: 'Use this when you want to dive deeper into a specific episode conversation.' It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.