obs_download_transcriptDownload your OBS transcript preview PDF to your local downloads folder. Optionally get it in English.
Download OBS transcript preview PDF to the local state downloads folder.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| english | No | ||
| output_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.1Output schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -trueOutput schema / propertiesAdded value: +{
+ "result": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "title": "Result",
+ "type": "object"
+ }
+}Output schema / requiredAdded value: +[
+ "result"
+]Output schema / titlePrevious value: -"obs_download_transcriptDictOutput"New value: +"obs_download_transcriptOutput"v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description usefully adds the write target (local state downloads folder), which is real behavioral context beyond the annotations, but it omits any auth requirements or whether it overwrites existing files.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no waste. Efficient, though its brevity is partly the reason other dimensions go under-specified.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values needn't be described. However, for a download/mutation tool with two undocumented parameters and no usage conditions, the description leaves gaps an agent would need filled to call it confidently.
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 0% for two parameters (english, output_dir), and the description never mentions either. The mention of the 'downloads folder' loosely implies output_dir's default behavior but doesn't explain that the parameter overrides it, and the english flag is completely unaddressed.
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?
States a specific verb (download) and resource (OBS transcript preview PDF) and even the destination (local state downloads folder), so the agent knows what it produces. It doesn't differentiate itself from the similarly-named download_resource sibling, but the resource is specific enough to be actionable.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus sibling tools like download_resource, nor any prerequisites (e.g. being authenticated or having a transcript available). The description only states what happens, not the conditions under which the agent should invoke it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.