Skip to main content
Glama

get_conversation

Retrieve conversation details and full transcripts from the ElevenLabs MCP Server for analyzing completed agent interactions.

Instructions

Gets conversation with transcript. Returns: conversation details and full transcript. Use when: analyzing completed agent conversations.

Args:
    conversation_id: The unique identifier of the conversation to retrieve, you can get the ids from the list_conversations tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
conversation_idYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_conversation' MCP tool. It fetches the conversation by ID using the ElevenLabs client, parses the transcript, formats details including metadata and analysis, and returns a TextContent response.
    @mcp.tool(
        description="""Gets conversation with transcript. Returns: conversation details and full transcript. Use when: analyzing completed agent conversations.
    
        Args:
            conversation_id: The unique identifier of the conversation to retrieve, you can get the ids from the list_conversations tool.
        """
    )
    def get_conversation(
        conversation_id: str,
    ) -> TextContent:
        """Get conversation details with transcript"""
        try:
            response = client.conversational_ai.conversations.get(conversation_id)
    
            # Parse transcript using utility function
            transcript, _ = parse_conversation_transcript(response.transcript)
    
            response_text = f"""Conversation Details:
    ID: {response.conversation_id}
    Status: {response.status}
    Agent ID: {response.agent_id}
    Message Count: {len(response.transcript)}
    
    Transcript:
    {transcript}"""
    
            if response.metadata:
                metadata = response.metadata
                duration = getattr(
                    metadata,
                    "call_duration_secs",
                    getattr(metadata, "duration_seconds", "N/A"),
                )
                started_at = getattr(
                    metadata, "start_time_unix_secs", getattr(metadata, "started_at", "N/A")
                )
                response_text += (
                    f"\n\nMetadata:\nDuration: {duration} seconds\nStarted: {started_at}"
                )
    
            if response.analysis:
                analysis_summary = getattr(
                    response.analysis, "summary", "Analysis available but no summary"
                )
                response_text += f"\n\nAnalysis:\n{analysis_summary}"
    
            return TextContent(type="text", text=response_text)
    
        except Exception as e:
            make_error(f"Failed to fetch conversation: {str(e)}")
            # satisfies type checker
            return TextContent(type="text", text="")
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool retrieves data ('Gets') and returns specific outputs, implying a read-only operation without destructive effects. However, it lacks details on permissions, rate limits, or error handling, which are important for a tool with no annotation coverage, making it adequate but with gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and usage, followed by parameter details. It uses two sentences efficiently, with no wasted words. However, the parameter explanation could be slightly more integrated into the flow, and the title is null, which slightly impacts structure.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (a read operation with one parameter), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It covers purpose, usage, and parameter semantics adequately, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or behavioral constraints like pagination or authentication needs, which are important for full contextual understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It explains the 'conversation_id' parameter by specifying its purpose ('unique identifier of the conversation to retrieve') and how to obtain it ('you can get the ids from the list_conversations tool'), adding meaningful context beyond the schema. This effectively covers the single parameter, though it could include format or validation details for a higher score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Gets') and resource ('conversation with transcript'), and it distinguishes what it returns ('conversation details and full transcript'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'list_conversations' beyond mentioning that tool as a source for IDs, which keeps it from a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit usage guidance with 'Use when: analyzing completed agent conversations,' which clearly indicates the context for invoking this tool. It also references 'list_conversations' as a source for IDs, offering some alternative context. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or detail other alternatives, preventing a score of 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/projectservan8n/elevenlabs-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server