get_transcriptRetrieves the transcript for a Calendly meeting recap by its recap UUID. Use it to read meeting conversation text from Calendly accounts.
Get Transcript. Reads Calendly data. Required scopes: meeting_recaps:read.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Calendly account; selects credentials, not an organization URI. | |
| recap_uuid | Yes | The meeting recap uuid |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's one real contribution is the required scope 'meeting_recaps:read', which is useful auth context not present in annotations. It adds nothing about return format or pagination, so it clears the lower annotation-adjusted bar only modestly.
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?
It is short and front-loaded, but 'Get Transcript.' merely restates the name and 'Reads Calendly data.' is near-tautological filler. Only the scope sentence earns its place, so the size is fine but the signal-to-noise ratio is mediocre.
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 full annotation coverage and no output schema, the description is minimally viable. It supplies the required scope but omits anything about what a transcript returns or how recaps and transcripts relate, leaving an agent to infer usage.
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 (account, recap_uuid) are already documented in the schema; baseline 3 applies. The description adds no format, sourcing, or constraint detail beyond what the schema provides.
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?
The description names a specific verb and resource ('Get Transcript'), so the basic action is clear. However, 'Reads Calendly data' is generic filler and it never distinguishes this from the nearby recap siblings (get_recap, list_recaps), nor explains that a transcript is a sub-resource of a meeting recap.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no reference to any alternative tool. An agent learns nothing about when get_transcript is the right choice versus get_recap or list_recaps.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.