LINE WORKS AiNote (unofficial)

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_note_transcript

Fetch the complete transcript of a LINE WORKS AiNote meeting note, with utterances formatted as [time] speaker: statement. Optionally limit the number of blocks returned with max_blocks.

Instructions

ノートの文字起こし全文を取得する。

1 時間の会議で数十 KB になる。要約で足りる場合は get_note_summary を使うこと。
発言は `[時刻] 話者: 発言` の形に整形して返す。

Args:
    note_id: ノートID。
    max_blocks: 返す発言ブロックの上限。省略すると全件。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note_id`	Yes
`max_blocks`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses the output format '`[時刻] 話者: 発言`' and the size implication, plus the default behavior of max_blocks (omitted returns all). It does not cover error handling or side effects, but this is a read-only operation and the key behavioral traits are stated.

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?

The description is concise and well-structured: a one-line purpose, a usage hint, a format note, and a short Args list. Every sentence carries value with no filler, and the purpose is front-loaded.

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?

For a simple read tool with an output schema present, the description covers the essential purpose, usage guidance, output format, and parameter semantics. It omits error handling and pagination beyond max_blocks, but given the low complexity and the presence of an output schema, it is sufficiently complete.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains note_id as 'ノートID' and max_blocks as '返す発言ブロックの上限。省略すると全件' (upper limit of utterance blocks to return; all if omitted), adding meaning beyond the bare schema types.

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?

The description clearly states the verb and resource: 'ノートの文字起こし全文を取得する' (get the full transcript of a note). It also differentiates from the sibling get_note_summary by explicitly naming it as the alternative for summaries, making the tool's scope unambiguous.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit guidance: '要約で足りる場合は get_note_summary を使うこと' (use get_note_summary if a summary is sufficient), and warns that a 1-hour meeting produces tens of KB, implying this tool is for detailed full-text retrieval. This directly informs when to choose this tool over the sibling.

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

Deploy Server