list_live_room_transcriptsRetrieve transcripts from a specified Circle live room to review past discussions or extract insights. Provide the room ID to fetch the transcript data.
List Live Room Transcripts. Reads community data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| account | No | Named private Circle account; selects credentials, not a remote community ID. | |
| room_id | Yes | Live Room ID |
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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's only contribution, 'Reads community data,' is vague filler that adds no behavioral detail beyond the annotations (e.g., pagination, room scope, auth via the account credential).
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?
The description is short and front-loaded, which is good, but the second sentence ('Reads community data.') is low-value filler rather than earned content. It is concise without being informative.
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 read tool with no output schema, the description could have described what transcripts are returned or pagination behavior, but instead offers only a generic 'reads community data' phrase. With annotations and schema covering their parts, the description still leaves the return shape entirely undocumented.
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% and both parameters are documented in the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The description adds nothing about required room_id or how the account credential selection works, so no credit above baseline.
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 first sentence is a verbatim restatement of the tool title/name ('List Live Room Transcripts'), adding no distinguishing information. It does not differentiate this tool from the sibling list_live_rooms, nor explain what a 'transcript' comprises.
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 mention of alternatives such as list_live_rooms. The agent must infer usage entirely from the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.