Retrieve the status and results of an AssemblyAI transcription job using a transcript ID and API key, so you can check progress and access the completed transcript.
Get the status and results of an AssemblyAI transcription job.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| api_key | Yes | AssemblyAI API key | |
| transcript_id | Yes | Transcript ID returned by assemblyai_transcribe |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.9v0.1.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful fact that the call returns job status as well as results, implying it may be called before completion, but says nothing about status values, error states, or rate limiting.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, no filler. Brevity comes at the cost of the routing and polling details an agent would need, but there is no structural waste.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should say what 'results' contains (transcript text, status enum, error message, language, duration) and that incomplete jobs return partial status. It delivers none of that, leaving an agent unable to predict the response shape for a no-output-schema tool.
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 schema already explains that transcript_id comes from assemblyai_transcribe and that api_key is the AssemblyAI key. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the 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+resource ('Get the status and results of an AssemblyAI transcription job'), so the agent knows it retrieves a job by ID. It does not distinguish itself from close siblings like assemblyai_get_sentences, assemblyai_get_paragraphs, assemblyai_list_transcripts or assemblyai_summarize, which all read from the same transcript.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus assemblyai_get_sentences/paragraphs (which return subsets) or assemblyai_list_transcripts. It also omits the natural polling pattern — call after assemblyai_transcribe, repeat until status leaves queued/processing — which is the primary usage context for a status-check tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.