get_transcriptFetch a meeting's transcript as plain text, one speaker line per caption, while live or after the meeting ends.
Returns the transcript as plain text, one "speaker: words" line per caption. Works while the meeting is live and after end_meeting.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes | The meeting_id returned by create_meeting or join_meeting. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses output format (plain text, speaker-prefixed lines) and availability (live and post-meeting). However, it omits permissions, error behavior, rate limits, and whether the transcript is complete or partial. Some behavioral context is provided, but the full burden is not met.
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?
Two sentences, front-loaded with the return format and followed by availability. No filler or repetition.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential call context: what is returned, its format, and when it can be used. It could mention invalid meeting_id handling or transcript completeness, but those are minor gaps.
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 single required parameter meeting_id is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('the transcript') and defines the output format as plain text with 'speaker: words' lines. No sibling tool provides transcripts, so it is inherently distinguishable; it also references end_meeting to clarify temporal scope.
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?
Clearly states the tool works both while the meeting is live and after end_meeting, giving the agent temporal context for when it can be called. It does not enumerate when-not or alternative approaches, but no sibling tool offers transcript retrieval, so the context is sufficient.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.