get_transcriptionRetrieve the current status and metadata for one transcription using its ID, covering uploading, preparing, transcribing, done, and error states.
Status and metadata of one transcription: fetching, uploading, preparing, transcribing, done or error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The transcription id. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint and openWorldHint already declare this is a safe, external-facing read, so the description only needs to add context. It usefully discloses the state machine (fetching through error), but says nothing about behavior for unknown ids, unavailable metadata while still processing, or polling frequency.
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?
One compact sentence with the resource front-loaded and the state list trailing as supporting detail. Nothing extraneous, though the sentence-fragment style is slightly terse.
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 one-parameter read tool with annotations covering the safety profile, this is close to sufficient, but with no output schema the description should say more about what 'metadata' comprises and what is returned while a transcription is still in flight.
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 coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is documented in the schema as 'The transcription id.' The description adds only the implication that the id selects a single transcription, which is marginal beyond the schema.
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?
Names the resource precisely (one transcription's status and metadata) and enumerates the lifecycle states it can return, so it is clearly distinct from get_transcript and get_summary. The verb is implicit ('Status and metadata of...') rather than stated, but the tool name supplies it.
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?
Usage is only implied: the enumeration of states signals polling-until-done, but the description never says when to call this instead of list_transcriptions, get_transcript, or get_summary, nor what to do once status is 'done'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.