Fetch podcast transcripts, combined or per-track, in text or JSON format for transcript-driven edits and production workflows.
Fetch the transcript, combined or per-track, in text or JSON format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| format | No | json | |
| combined | No | ||
| project_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Input schema / properties / project_path / anyOfAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+]Input schema / properties / project_path / defaultAdded value: +nullInput schema / properties / project_path / typeRemoved value: -"string"Input schema / requiredRemoved value: -[
- "project_path"
-]v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read, but says nothing about permissions, transcript readiness (must transcription/alignment be done first?), latency, transcript size, or pagination. An output schema exists, which covers return values, but the execution-side behavior is undisclosed.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the two axis choices trailing. No filler, though it is arguably under-specified for a tool with an undocumented parameter rather than over-long.
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 simple read tool with an output schema (so return shape need not be described), the definition is minimally adequate. The gaps are behavioral: no precondition about transcript existence/alignment, no explanation of project_path, and no guidance distinguishing it from export_transcript or search_transcript_tool.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does partially: 'combined or per-track' maps to the combined flag and 'text or JSON' maps to format. However, project_path is never explained, and no defaults or valid values are given for format, so coverage of the three parameters is incomplete.
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 (Fetch) and resource (the transcript), plus the scope choice of combined vs per-track. It does not differentiate itself from adjacent transcript siblings like export_transcript or search_transcript_tool, so it stops 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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites, and no naming of alternatives such as export_transcript for output or search_transcript_tool for querying. The agent must infer selection from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.