Meet MCP Server

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v2.1.1
Disambiguation4/5
The live vs persisted transcript distinction is clear between MeetTranscriptGet/List and TranscriptGet/List, though the names are similar enough to cause slight hesitation. Backfill, Reembed, Search, and Status are distinct services.
Naming Consistency4/5
All names use camelCase and follow an object-action pattern, but the prefix varies (McpStatus vs MeetTranscript* vs Transcript*). The 'Meet' prefix inconsistently indicates live Google data, while plain 'Transcript' indicates persisted data.
Tool Count5/5
Eight tools is a well-scoped count for managing Meet transcript ingestion, retrieval, search, and embedding. Each tool addresses a distinct stage in the transcript lifecycle without bloat.
Completeness4/5
The toolset covers the core lifecycle: list, get, backfill, persist, search, and embed. Missing delete/update operations for persisted transcripts are minor gaps, as they may not be core to the server's purpose.
Average 4/5 across 8 of 8 tools scored. Lowest: 3.3/5.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does add useful context: each transcript has a state indicating whether its file has been generated, and it impersonates userEmail via DWD. However, it does not mention read-only nature, pagination behavior, or error scenarios.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Three concise sentences front-load the core purpose and pack in relevant behavioral and auth context with no wasted words.
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 no output schema or annotations, the description covers the core listing operation, the state field, and impersonation, but it omits pagination semantics and the expected return shape. This is adequate for a simple list tool but leaves gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 25% (only userEmail described). The description adds context that conferenceRecordId identifies the conference and reinforces DWD for userEmail, but it does not explain pageSize, pageToken, or the format of conferenceRecordId.
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 lists transcripts for a Google Meet conference, providing a specific verb and resource. It mentions the state attribute but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like TranscriptList or TranscriptSearch.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when transcripts for a Meet conference are needed and mentions DWD impersonation, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or provide exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It usefully discloses the data source scope, ordering, and filter options, which are meaningful behavioral traits. It stops short of mentioning pagination, default limits, or returned shape, so not fully transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence with clear front-loading: action, object, scope, ordering, then filters. No filler or redundancy.
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 there is no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the core purpose, sorting, and filter capabilities. However, it omits pagination behavior and any mention of the limit/offset parameters, leaving a gap for a 6-parameter tool with no required fields.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description adds meaning for organizer, attendee, and date range filters, helping map to organizerEmail, attendee, and startTimeFrom/startTimeTo beyond the sparse schema. It does not mention limit or offset, and those parameters lack schema descriptions, so coverage remains incomplete.
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 action ('List') and the resource ('previously-persisted Meet transcripts'), and adds a useful scope qualifier ('not live from Google') plus ordering. It is specific, though it does not explicitly call out how it differs from the sibling MeetTranscriptList tool.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies when to use it: for persisted transcripts, not live ones, with optional filters. It does not name alternative tools for live transcripts, retrieval, or search, so the guidance is more implicit than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the content returned (health, users, recent transcripts) and hints at lightweight behavior, but it does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or side-effect free. This is a minor gap for a status tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the tool's purpose ('MCP server status') and then lists the key components. It contains no redundant information and is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description covers the main return values: health, workspace users with flags, and recent transcripts. It is sufficiently complete for a read-only status tool, though it could add a brief note about intended use cases like checking system health.
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 is empty with zero parameters, and the baseline for zero parameters is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters, and it adds context about the output instead, which is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as providing MCP server status, listing specific content: health, configured Workspace users with a flag about transcript watcher subscription mapping, and the 10 most recent saved transcripts. It is distinct from sibling tools, which all focus on transcript operations, though it lacks an explicit verb like 'get' or 'retrieve'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is the tool to use for checking server status, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. Since no sibling tools overlap with status checking, the contextual signal is sufficient, but explicit guidance is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description discloses important behaviors: impersonation via DWD for userEmail, default selection of the first transcript when transcriptId is omitted, and aggregation of all entries. It does not mention error conditions or whether it is read-only, but the key behaviors are surfaced.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences, both information-dense. The first sentence states the primary action and output formats; the second covers default behavior and authentication context. No redundancy or filler.
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?
The description is adequate for a straightforward read tool but falls short on return value structure (no output schema) and potential edge cases like multiple transcripts or errors. It does not describe what 'full transcript' includes (e.g., speaker labels, timestamps), leaving the user to infer from the output format.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 50%, with conferenceRecordId missing a description. The description adds meaning to userEmail (impersonation) and transcriptId (default selection rule), but does not clarify conferenceRecordId beyond the schema name. The format parameter is already self-explanatory via its enum values.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description unambiguously names the action ('Retrieve'), the resource ('a full Google Meet transcript'), and the scope ('all entries aggregated'). It also states the output formats (Markdown or JSON), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like MeetTranscriptList or TranscriptSearch.
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 gives clear usage context: use this tool to get the complete transcript, defaulting to the first transcript if none specified. However, it does not explicitly compare against siblings (e.g., 'use MeetTranscriptList to list available transcripts'), so it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well by disclosing the read source (disk, persisted file), clarifying it is not a live Google call, and summarizing the return contents (enriched metadata and markdown body). It does not cover error cases or the effect of includeBody=false, but core behavior is transparent.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two coherent sentences, front-loaded with the action and resource. Every phrase earns its place; no filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple 2-parameter read tool without an output schema, the description covers the essential scenario: what is fetched, from where, and what is returned. It is sufficient for basic usage, though it could be slightly stronger by explicitly contrasting with the sibling MeetTranscriptGet or TranscriptList tools.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and includes a thorough transcriptId explanation (accepts full name, uses last segment) plus includeBody default. The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description starts with a specific action ('Fetch') and resource ('previously-persisted Meet transcript'), and names the key identifier (transcriptId). The clarification 'not live from Google' distinguishes it from possible live transcript siblings, making purpose unambiguous.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool: when you have a transcriptId and want the persisted copy rather than a live one. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the 'not live from Google' and 'read from disk' phrasing gives practical usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the search operates over subject/description/transcript body, supports optional vector/hybrid modes, and is scoped to ingested transcripts. This adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the schema, though it doesn't explicitly state read-only or return format.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and scope. No redundant wording; every clause adds information.
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?
The tool has 9 parameters and no output schema. The description explains the search scope and modes but does not describe the return value or result shape. While limit/offset in the schema imply pagination, the description leaves the output unspecified, which is a notable gap for a search tool.
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?
Schema coverage is 78%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by specifying the full-text fields (subject/description/transcript body) and the OpenAI embedding prerequisite for vector/hybrid, which supplements the schema's mode descriptions. This elevates the score above the baseline.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states 'Search previously-persisted Meet transcripts' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by noting 'not live from Google' and scoping to 'ingested by the watcher or backfill', which clearly separates it from MeetTranscriptGet/List and TranscriptList.
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 clear context for when to use: searching already-persisted transcripts, not live ones. It also notes vector/hybrid only when OpenAI embeddings are configured. While it doesn't name sibling tools explicitly, the 'not live from Google' exclusion and persistence scope imply alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly mentions writing files to a specific directory, indexing into the search database, parallel fetching, and deduplication by transcriptId with skipping of already-ingested transcripts. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral detail.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is three sentences, each earning its place: the first gives scope, the second details the pipeline, and the third explains deduplication. It is information-dense without being verbose.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the main side effects (file writes, indexing, dedupe) and key parameters. However, it omits the behavior of generateEmbedding (OpenAI embedding generation) and the maxConferencesPerUser cap, which are part of the tool's behavior. Still, the core functionality is well-described.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters3/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema: it reiterates startTime and userEmails but does not clarify behavior for concurrency or generateEmbedding, and maxConferencesPerUser remains undocumented in both description and schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific action ('Backfill persisted Meet transcripts') and a clear scope ('for every configured user or the subset in userEmails'). It also outlines the process steps (list conferences, fetch, enrich, write, index), distinguishing it from sibling tools that likely focus on individual retrieval or re-embedding.
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 clearly implies when to use this tool (for bulk backfilling past transcripts) and describes the process in a way that contrasts with more targeted operations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it falls short of the highest bar.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
In the absence of annotations, the description discloses important behavioral traits: the default operation (only missing embeddings), the force=true behavior (re-embed every record), and the API key requirement. It does not mention rate limits, output, or error handling, but it covers the key safe-operation aspects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness5/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long with the core action front-loaded. Every sentence provides necessary information: purpose, default scope, force flag, and environmental prerequisite. No filler or redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (3 parameters, no output schema), the description adequately covers purpose, default behavior, force mode, and prerequisites. It could mention the return value or side effects, but the parameter schema covers the configurable aspects, making this a sufficient and complete description for an AI agent.
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?
Schema coverage is 100% for all 3 parameters, and the description adds context beyond the schema by explaining the default behavior associated with force=false and the typical use case. The limit and concurrency parameters are already well-described in the schema, so the description doesn't need to duplicate them.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose5/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb+resource ('Compute or recompute OpenAI embeddings for persisted transcripts') and distinguishes it from sibling retrieval/search tools by explaining the default scope (records ingested without an embedding) and the force option.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use the tool (typical after adding the OpenAI key to an already-populated archive) and explains the force parameter's behavior. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it lacks explicit exclusionary guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![meet MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/silkweave/meet/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/silkweave/meet)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![meet MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/silkweave/meet/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/silkweave/meet)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/silkweave/meet'

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