Fathom MCP Server

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true, and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations: it specifies that summaries are 'always in English regardless of the meeting's original language' and describes what the summary includes ('key discussion points, decisions made, and important topics covered'), which helps the agent understand the tool's output characteristics.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by details on what the summary includes, parameter explanations, return information, examples, and notes. Every section adds value without redundancy, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's low complexity (2 parameters, 100% schema coverage), rich annotations (covering read-only, non-destructive, idempotent behavior), and no output schema, the description is complete. It explains what the tool does, what the summary contains, parameter usage with examples, and important behavioral notes (like English-only output), leaving no significant gaps for the agent.

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 100%, with both parameters well-documented in the schema. The description's Args section repeats this information but adds minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'The recording_id can be found in the meeting list response' provides sourcing context). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, with slight credit for the sourcing note.

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 specific action ('retrieves'), resource ('AI-generated summary for a specific Fathom recording'), and scope ('for each meeting'). It distinguishes from siblings like fathom_get_transcript (which gets raw transcripts) and fathom_list_meetings (which lists meetings rather than retrieving summaries).

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool ('to get the AI-generated summary for a meeting'), and the notes section offers practical guidance ('recording_id can be found in the meeting list response'). However, it doesn't explicitly state when NOT to use it or name alternatives (like using fathom_get_transcript for raw content instead of summaries).

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