Close a meeting by providing its ID and optionally request a summary before ending.
End a meeting and optionally get a summary.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| meeting_id | Yes | The meeting ID to close. | |
| request_summary | No | If true, ask the agent for a summary before ending. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions the optional summary, but does not disclose whether ending is irreversible, whether a summary is returned in the response, what happens to the meeting transcript, or what side effects occur on related collaboration state.
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 a single concise sentence with no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. It could be more informative, but it is appropriately short for the simple operation it describes.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect after calling the tool. The vague 'optionally get a summary' does not explain how the summary is delivered, and the relationship to local meetings/collaborations is left unaddressed.
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 the input schema already documents both meeting_id and request_summary clearly. The description only restates the summary option without adding syntax, defaults, or edge-case semantics 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?
The description clearly states the action ('End a meeting') and the optional summary feature, so an agent can infer the core purpose. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling 'end_local_meeting' or 'end_collaboration', leaving some ambiguity about scope.
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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like end_local_meeting or end_collaboration. It also does not mention any prerequisites or conditions under which ending a meeting is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.