get_transcriptRetrieve an existing ScreenApp transcript by file UUID. Handles long transcripts with pagination using offset and limit to fetch all content.
Read an existing transcript. Long transcripts are paginated; continue with nextOffset while hasMore is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| fileId | Yes | ScreenApp recording/file UUID | |
| format | No | ||
| offset | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false, and the description adds a meaningful behavioral fact: long transcripts are paginated and the caller should follow nextOffset while hasMore is true. It also warns implicitly that a single response may be incomplete. This is useful context beyond the structured annotations, with no contradiction.
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 no filler: the first states the core operation, and the second gives the only extra behavior the caller needs. It is appropriately front-loaded and every sentence earns its place.
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 read-only, idempotent get with no output schema, the description covers the main operation and the pagination loop, while annotations cover safety. However, it does not clarify what nextOffset maps to in the input (offset), how format changes the result, or how transcript differs from get_summary, so an agent still has questions on first call. Useful but not fully complete.
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 description coverage is only 25%: fileId has a description, while limit, offset, and format do not. The description mentions pagination and nextOffset/hasMore but never ties these to the offset parameter or explains format/limit semantics. As a result, the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage.
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 opens with 'Read an existing transcript,' naming a specific verb and resource, and the title reinforces the target. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like get_recording or get_summary, so the agent must infer which resource is meant from the noun alone. Overall clear, but sibling differentiation is implicit rather than 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?
There is no statement about when to choose this tool over list_recordings, get_recording, search_recordings, or get_summary. The only use-oriented information is the pagination instruction, which concerns iteration rather than tool selection. This leaves the agent without alternative-selection guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.