list_transcriptionsGet all transcription runs for a meeting bot, including transcript ID, provider, status, and 1-hour valid download URLs. Provide a bot ID to retrieve its transcription history.
All transcription runs for a bot: transcript_id, provider, status, presigned download_urls (valid 1h).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| bot_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description adds useful behavioral detail: it returns transcript_id, provider, status, and presigned download URLs valid for one hour. This goes beyond the annotation by explaining output contents and a time-based constraint, though it does not cover pagination or ordering.
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 one concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose and then lists the important return fields. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or repetition of the 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 simple list endpoint with one parameter and read-only annotations, the description covers the essential return values and the URL expiry caveat. It is complete enough to call correctly, though it omits potential pagination or empty-result behavior; this is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.
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?
The schema provides no description for bot_id (0% coverage), but the description clarifies it refers to the bot whose transcription runs are being listed. The parameter is a single obvious identifier, so the description partially compensates for the missing schema documentation, though it does not specify the format or source of bot_id.
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 resource ('transcription runs for a bot') and the scope ('All'), and lists the key fields returned. This makes it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like get_transcript, which implies a single transcript, and transcribe_audio, which creates one.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_transcript or transcribe_audio. The description implies it is for listing runs, but it does not state when a user should choose this instead of a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.