Get a meeting's action items by providing its Fathom meeting ID, returning tasks with assigned owners and due dates.
Get only the action items from a meeting — clean list with owners and due dates
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes | The Fathom meeting ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the output shape ('clean list with owners and due dates') and implies a read-only operation via 'Get'. However, it omits edge-case behavior such as what happens when there are no action items or when the meeting ID is invalid.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence conveys the operation, the scope, and the output format with no filler. Every word contributes to the agent's understanding.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers what is returned ('owners and due dates') and the input source ('a meeting'). It could be more complete about empty results or error behavior, but the low complexity keeps this from being a major gap.
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 meeting_id already described as 'The Fathom meeting ID'. The description adds no new parameter details beyond referencing the meeting. This matches the baseline where the schema does the heavy lifting.
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 uses a specific verb ('Get') with a clear resource ('action items from a meeting') and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_summary and get_transcript with the word 'only'. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from nearby alternatives.
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 phrase 'only the action items' communicates a specific use case: extracting action items rather than summaries or transcripts. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, but the context of sibling tools and the 'only' qualifier provide clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.