List or inspect recent OneMira C1 recorded meeting sessions, including speaker attribution and metadata, to review transcripts and session details.
List or inspect recent OneMira C1 recorded meeting sessions with speaker attribution and metadata.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| action | No | list | |
| session_id | No | Session ID when action is show |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that results include speaker attribution and metadata, but says nothing about permissions, pagination, what 'recent' spans, or what an 'active' session means.
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 wasted wording; the issue is under-specification rather than verbosity.
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?
A read tool with three parameters, no annotations, and no output schema needs more: the action enum's three values and default limit behavior are unexplained, so an agent cannot confidently choose between list, show, and active.
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 only 33%, and the description adds no meaning for any parameter. The 'active' action and the interaction between limit and action are left entirely undocumented.
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?
Names a specific resource (OneMira C1 recorded meeting sessions) and concrete content (speaker attribution, metadata), which distinguishes it from generic search. However it doesn't contrast itself with siblings like mira_search or mira_segments, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 words 'list or inspect' hint at read modes but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance, and no mention of when mira_search or mira_segments would be preferable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.