AssemblyAI MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'Retrieve,' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, error handling, or response format. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage, making it minimally informative about behavior.

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 a single, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address key aspects like what the retrieval returns, error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a tool with this complexity and lack of structured data, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'transcriptId' fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or context about transcript IDs. This meets the baseline score of 3, as the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('transcription results by transcript ID'), making the purpose immediately understandable. It doesn't specifically differentiate from sibling tools like 'submit_transcription' or 'transcribe_file', which have different purposes, but the distinction is reasonably implied rather than explicitly stated.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, such as needing a transcript ID from a previous operation, or specify contexts where it's appropriate. This leaves the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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