get_summaryRetrieve the summary and status of a finished transcription by ID, so you can review key points without reading the full transcript.
The summary of a finished transcription and its status. Ask for one with request_summary if there is none yet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds useful context that this reads a summary for a finished transcription and that request_summary is the fallback. It does not describe return format, status values, or failure behavior, so it adds some but not rich 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.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two short sentences with no wasted wording. It front-loads the resource and status, then follows with the alternative-tool routing. Every sentence contributes to selection or usage.
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?
This is a simple read-only tool with annotations covering safety and no output schema. The description explains the resource at a high level but leaves the id parameter ambiguous and does not describe what the returned summary or status looks like. For a one-parameter read tool it is adequate but incomplete.
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?
The schema has a single required id parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description never explains what id refers to. It is unclear whether id identifies the transcription, the summary, or something else. The description therefore fails to compensate for the schema's missing parameter documentation.
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 identifies the resource as the summary of a finished transcription and also mentions its status, which is more specific than the title alone. It distinguishes this tool from request_summary by naming that sibling as the alternative when no summary exists. The only minor gap is that the retrieval verb is implied rather than stated explicitly.
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?
The description gives a clear routing rule: use request_summary if there is no summary yet, which implies get_summary is for when one already exists. It also implies the transcription must be finished. It does not spell out error conditions or prerequisites beyond that, but the main when-to-use guidance is present.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.