flow_transcriptRetrieve a project’s full agent chat transcript, including both conversation sides, approval status, and pending approvals; optionally include the agent’s reasoning.
Returns the whole agent chat of a project (both sides, approvals and whether they are still pending). Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project_id | Yes | ||
| include_thinking | No | Also return the agent's reasoning ('Show thinking') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered. The description usefully adds that both conversation sides, approvals, and pending state are included, and that the call is free (no credit cost). It says nothing about transcript size, truncation, or pagination, which matters for a 'whole chat' return.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the core content description before the secondary details. Slightly compressed phrasing ('both sides', trailing 'Free.') but nothing 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?
With no output schema, the description does describe what comes back (full conversation, approvals, pending flags), and the read-only profile is covered by annotations. The main gap is the unexplained required project_id and no note on return format, but overall sufficient for a two-parameter read tool.
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 50%: include_thinking is documented in the schema, but project_id has no description anywhere. The description never mentions either parameter, so it does not compensate for the undocumented required project_id.
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 and resource: returns the whole agent chat transcript of a project, including both sides and approval states. An agent can distinguish this read-transcript tool from siblings like flow_chat or flow_approve, though the alternatives are never named.
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 'use when' statement or exclusion against flow_chat/flow_status. The word 'Free' hints at a cost-free read path relative to credit-consuming siblings, implying a usage context, but the agent must infer it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.