meetings_reportRetrieves transcript rows from specified meetings so you can write summaries or reports, with optional filters by meeting ID and sequence.
Rows a summary is built from. This is not the summary. You write the prose.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| since | No | Return lines with a seq greater than this. Omit or pass 0 to read from the start. | |
| meeting_ids | No | Meetings to include. Omit for every meeting this server knows. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, but it does usefully disclose that the output is raw rows rather than a finished summary and that prose generation is the caller's job. It does not describe ordering, row fields, or pagination beyond the schema.
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?
Three terse fragments with zero filler, and the key point (it returns rows, not a summary) is front-loaded. It is a little cryptic, but nothing is wasted.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should explain the shape of the returned rows, yet it leaves that entirely undefined. For a data-retrieval tool with no annotations and no output schema, the caller is left uncertain what it actually gets back.
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%, so both optional parameters (since, meeting_ids) are fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 says it returns 'rows a summary is built from' and explicitly distinguishes itself from a summary, which gives a vague sense of the resource (raw cross-meeting data). But it never states a clear verb or what a 'row' is, leaving the purpose only implied.
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?
It tells the agent this is not the summary and that you write the prose, which hints at usage as a data-gathering step. However, it names no alternatives among the many siblings (e.g., tail_lines, get_transcript) and gives no explicit when/when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.