Skip to main content
Glama

List Past Meetings

list_meetings
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve past meetings with deep pagination and flexible filtering, including title search, date ranges, and selectable fields for participant, recording, and chat details.

Instructions

Past meetings, newest first — deep paginated archive. Default row: conference_key, room_name, title, start, end, participants_count, participants (≤6; full list via get_meeting), has_chat, recording_ids. Times are ISO-8601 in the machine's own zone, to the second. Meetings still in progress may also appear (the request asks for them the way the web client does; not verified against a live meeting). Returns {meetings, count, has_more, next_offset} — the API gives no grand total, so has_more is the only end signal. A requested field the API did not send is simply missing from the row: that means "not in this payload", not "no data at all".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
endNowindow end, same format; a bare date runs to 23:59:59.999 local.
limitNopage size.
queryNotitle search (substring, case-insensitive).
startNowindow start as local ISO — "2026-07-01" or "2026-07-01T09:00"; a bare date starts at 00:00 local. Omitted → no lower bound.
fieldsNorow fields to return; omitted → the default set above. Ask for invited_participants (who was invited, as opposed to who came) or session_halls_artifacts to get what the default set leaves out.
offsetNohow many to skip (newest first).
participant_fieldsNofields of each participant; omitted → firstname, surname, patronymic, because participants are what inflate a page (measured at limit=30: 12.4 KB with names, 45.0 KB carrying department/post/login too). Ask for department, post, login or any other enum value when you need it.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context: meetings in progress may appear, the API provides no grand total so has_more is the end signal, and missing fields indicate 'not in payload' rather than absence of data. These go beyond the annotations.

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 relatively long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with a clear purpose and covers ordering, default fields, timezone, return shape, and edge cases in a structured, non-redundant way.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has 7 optional parameters, an output schema, and comprehensive annotations. The description fills the remaining gaps: pagination semantics, time formatting, in-progress meetings, and handling of missing fields. It is complete for the tool's complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides 100% coverage with rich parameter descriptions. The tool description adds value by defining the default row set referenced by the fields parameter and explaining the behavior for participant fields (≤6, with get_meeting for full list). This goes beyond the schema alone.

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 tool lists past meetings, ordered newest first, and is a deep paginated archive. It distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning 'full list via get_meeting' for participants, implying list_meetings provides a summarized view.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool (listing past meetings, pagination, default fields). It explicitly points to get_meeting as the alternative for full participant lists, but does not enumerate exclusions such as 'use create_meeting instead'.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/mainpart/ktalk-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server