Read timestamped, speaker-diarized transcript segments from a specific OneMira C1 recording session and filter by speaker to review meeting dialogue by time and participant.
Read timestamped, speaker-diarized transcript segments from a specific OneMira C1 recording session.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| speaker | No | Optional speaker filter | |
| session_id | Yes | Session ID or relative Markdown filename |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses that output is timestamped and speaker-diarized segments, but says nothing about ordering, volume/pagination limits, authentication needs, or behavior when the session has no transcript.
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; the resource qualifiers (timestamped, speaker-diarized) do real work. It is terse to the point that some guidance is missing, 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?
For a simple two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what comes back (timestamped, diarized segments). The main residual gap is how the speaker filter interacts with the result and any limits on volume.
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 parameters are already documented, establishing a baseline of 3. The description adds only a loose hint that session_id targets a specific recording session; it never mentions the optional speaker filter or what values it accepts beyond what the schema already says.
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 (Read) and a precisely characterized resource (timestamped, speaker-diarized transcript segments) scoped to a specific OneMira C1 recording session. This distinguishes it well from mira_search and mira_sessions by resource type, though it never explicitly names the siblings it differs from.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this when it has a session_id and wants per-turn transcript data. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no pointer to mira_search for content-based lookup or mira_sessions for discovering the session_id.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.