Reads the original transcript of a recording, meeting, or class note by note ID; returns unavailable when no transcript exists instead of an AI-generated summary.
直接读取录音台、录音卡及录音、会议或课堂笔记的转写原文；设备来源先用list_notes.source定位。没有转写时明确返回不可用，不用AI总结代替。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | 笔记 ID，推荐十进制字符串 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.10.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description does add real behavioral context: missing transcripts yield an explicit 'unavailable' result instead of synthesized content. However it says nothing about permissions, whether it works for every note type, or rate/response shape, so the disclosure is only partial for a no-annotation tool.
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 compact clauses, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the source-lookup precondition and the no-transcript rule. No filler or restated title.
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 required id with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what it returns (transcript raw text) and the failure case (unavailable). It only lacks detail on what the returned transcript looks like (speaker segmentation, pagination) for very long recordings.
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% and the single id parameter is documented in the schema (笔记 ID, 推荐十进制字符串). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so 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?
States a specific verb (读取 transcript original text) and a clearly bounded resource set (录音台、录音卡、录音/会议/课堂笔记), and explicitly contrasts it with AI summaries so the agent can distinguish it from get_note_chapters or recall-style tools.
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?
Gives an explicit precondition — locate the device source with list_notes.source first — and an explicit fallback rule: when no transcript exists the tool reports unavailable rather than substituting an AI summary. That is a when-to-use plus a when-not-to-substitute instruction naming the alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.