unmuteRe-enables transcription for an existing meeting using its meeting ID, so spoken content is captured again after transcription was turned off.
Turns transcription back on for this meeting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes | The meeting_id of the room (from create_broadcast or join_broadcast). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and one sentence is not enough: it does not say whether the call is idempotent, what happens if transcription is already enabled, whether the bot must be in the meeting first, or whether the meeting_id must be live. It discloses the state effect and nothing more.
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 with no filler; every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope.
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?
With one fully documented parameter and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient, but as an unannotated mutation tool it leaves open idempotency, precondition, and error behavior that an agent would want before calling.
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 itself explains meeting_id including its origin (create_broadcast or join_broadcast). The description adds no parameter detail 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 ('turns transcription back on') and the resource scope ('for this meeting'), and the 'back on' framing implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling 'mute'. It does not explicitly name mute as its counterpart, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 statement of when to call this versus alternatives or what prerequisites apply; usage is only implied by the name and the 'back on' wording, which suggests re-enabling after a mute. An agent can infer it but is not told.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.