Skip to main content
Glama

Clean Transcript

clean_transcript

Remove Whisper silence hallucinations and micro-token loops from an existing meeting transcript, overwriting the file with a cleaned version and creating a backup.

Instructions

Purge Whisper silence hallucinations ('Saya: I', 'A B U', micro-token loops) from an existing meeting transcript.

session_id: Session ID to clean (empty = latest session). Overwrites transcript.txt with cleaned version and creates a backup.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "clean_transcript"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the most important side effect: it overwrites transcript.txt and creates a backup. It does not cover whether the operation is idempotent, what happens when no hallucinations are found, or any failure modes, so it falls short of full disclosure.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the action and its scope, then the parameter and side effects. The hallucination examples are compact and directly bound the scope of the operation rather than being filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

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 no explanation, and the single parameter plus destructive side effect are both covered. Only minor gaps remain (behavior on a clean transcript, backup naming/location), which is acceptable for a one-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: 'session_id: Session ID to clean (empty = latest session)' explains both the meaning and the default behavior. This is meaningfully more than the bare string property in the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb 'purge' plus a concrete target (Whisper silence hallucinations) with named examples ('Saya: I', 'A B U', micro-token loops). No sibling in the list performs transcript cleaning, so the tool is trivially distinguishable from list_meeting_summaries and the rest.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase 'from an existing meeting transcript' implies the operating context (a transcript already exists), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative to consider. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.