Skip to main content
Glama
enesjakozh
ChatterBoxIO

ChatterBox MCP Server

by ChatterBoxIO
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
TypeScript
Remote

ChatterBox MCP Server

A Model Context Protocol server implementation for ChatterBox, enabling AI agents to interact with online meetings and generate meeting summaries.

Overview

The ChatterBox MCP Server provides tools for AI agents to:

  • Join online meetings (Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams)

  • Capture transcripts and recordings

  • Generate meeting summaries

Related MCP server: Google Meet MCP Server

Installation

Installing via Smithery

To install chatterboxio-mcp-server for Claude Desktop automatically via Smithery:

npx -y @smithery/cli install @OverQuotaAI/chatterboxio-mcp-server --client claude

Manual Installation

You can install the dependencies using either npm or pnpm:

# Using npm
npm install

# Using pnpm
pnpm install

Configuration

Getting API Keys

You can get your API keys for free by registering on our website at ChatterBox. After registration, you'll receive your API endpoint and key.

Environment Setup

Create a .env file in the root directory with the following variables:

CHATTERBOX_API_ENDPOINT=https://api.chatter-box.io
CHATTERBOX_API_KEY=your_api_key_here

Usage

Starting the Server

pnpm start

Available Tools

joinMeeting

Join a Zoom or Google Meet meeting and capture transcript and audio recording.

Parameters:

  • platform (string): The online conference platform ("zoom", "googlemeet", or "teams")

  • meetingId (string): The ID of the meeting

  • meetingPassword (string, optional): The password or the passcode for the meeting

  • botName (string): The name of the bot

  • webhookUrl (string, optional): URL to receive webhook events for meeting status

getMeetingInfo

Get information about a meeting, including transcript and recording.

Parameters:

  • sessionId (string): The session ID to get information for

summarizeMeeting

Generate a concise summary of a meeting's contents from its transcript.

Parameters:

  • transcript (string): The meeting transcript to summarize

Development

Prerequisites

  • Node.js 16+

  • npm or yarn

Building

pnpm run build

Debugging

To debug the MCP server using the MCP Inspector:

npx @modelcontextprotocol/inspector

License

This project is licensed under the MIT License - see the LICENSE file for details.

Support

For support, please visit ChatterBox Documentation or contact support@chatter-box.io.

Contributing

Contributions are welcome! Please feel free to submit a Pull Request.

Available Tools

3 tools
getMeetingInfoC

Get information about a meeting

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sessionIdYesThe session ID to get information for

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Get information about a meeting' implies a read-only operation, but it doesn't specify what information is returned, whether it requires authentication, if there are rate limits, or any error conditions. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what information is returned (e.g., meeting details, participants, timing), which is critical for a tool with 'get' functionality. The agent is left guessing about the tool's output and full behavior.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'sessionId' documented as 'The session ID to get information for'. The description doesn't add any meaning beyond this, such as explaining what a session ID is or where to obtain it. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get information about a meeting' states a clear verb ('Get') and resource ('meeting'), but it's vague about what specific information is retrieved. It doesn't distinguish this tool from its sibling 'summarizeMeeting', which might also provide meeting information in a summarized form.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'summarizeMeeting' or 'joinMeeting'. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a sessionId) or contextual factors that would help an agent choose between these tools.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

joinMeetingB

Join a Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams meeting using the provided meeting ID and password and capture transcript and audio recording

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
platformYesThe online conference platform (zoom, googlemeet, or teams)
meetingIdYesThe ID of the Zoom ('###########') or Google Meet ('xxx-xxx-xxx') or Microsoft Teams ('##########') meeting
meetingPasswordNoThe password or the passcode for the Zoom or Google Meet or Microsoft Teams meeting (optional)
botNameYesThe name of the bot
webhookUrlNoURL to receive webhook events for meeting status (optional)

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions joining and capturing data, but lacks critical details: whether this requires specific permissions or authentication, if it's a read-only or mutative operation (e.g., does joining affect meeting state?), rate limits, error handling (e.g., invalid IDs), or what happens post-capture (e.g., where recordings are stored). The description is insufficient for a tool with significant behavioral implications.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the primary action ('join') and key outcomes, making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (joining meetings and capturing data), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It fails to address critical behavioral aspects like permissions, mutative effects, error scenarios, or output format (e.g., how transcripts/recordings are returned). For a tool with significant operational impact, this leaves too many gaps for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, providing clear documentation for all 5 parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implicitly referencing 'meeting ID and password' without elaborating on their semantics or the optional 'webhookUrl' for status updates. Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the specific action ('join'), the resources affected ('Zoom, Google Meet, or Microsoft Teams meeting'), and the outcomes ('capture transcript and audio recording'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'getMeetingInfo' (which likely retrieves information) and 'summarizeMeeting' (which likely processes existing data) by focusing on active participation and data capture.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'getMeetingInfo' or 'summarizeMeeting'. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing valid credentials or meeting access), exclusions (e.g., not for already-ended meetings), or contextual triggers (e.g., use when real-time transcription is needed).

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

summarizeMeetingB

Generate a concise summary of a meeting's contents from its transcript

ParametersJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
transcriptYesThe meeting transcript to summarize

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool generates a summary but doesn't describe key behaviors like output format, length, quality, or any limitations (e.g., handling long transcripts, language support). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it operates.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, efficient sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the core action and resource, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence earns its place by conveying essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (summarization task) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but misses behavioral details and usage context. Without an output schema, it should ideally explain return values, but it doesn't, leaving gaps in completeness for effective agent use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'transcript' well-documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format expectations, length constraints). Since the schema does the heavy lifting, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't detract.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a concise summary of a meeting's contents from its transcript.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('summary'), and source ('transcript'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like getMeetingInfo or joinMeeting, which prevents a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools (getMeetingInfo, joinMeeting) or any context for choosing this tool over others. The usage is implied from the purpose, but there are no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Tool Schema Changelog

Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. 1 tool updatev1.0.0
    • ChangedjoinMeeting4 fields changed
      • changedInput schema / properties / meetingId / description
        Previous value: -"The ID of the Zoom ('###########') or Google Meet ('xxx-xxx-xxx') meeting"New value: +"The ID of the Zoom ('###########') or Google Meet ('xxx-xxx-xxx') or Microsoft Teams ('##########') meeting"
      • changedInput schema / properties / meetingPassword / description
        Previous value: -"The password for the Zoom meeting (optional)"New value: +"The password or the passcode for the Zoom or Google Meet or Microsoft Teams meeting (optional)"
      • changedInput schema / properties / platform / description
        Previous value: -"The online conference platform (zoom or googlemeet)"New value: +"The online conference platform (zoom, googlemeet, or teams)"
      • changedInput schema / properties / platform / enum
        Previous value: -[
-  "zoom",
-  "googlemeet"
-]New value: +[
+  "zoom",
+  "googlemeet",
+  "teams"
+]
  2. 3 tool updates
    • First observedgetMeetingInfo
    • First observedjoinMeeting
    • First observedsummarizeMeeting
Install Server
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: getMeetingInfo retrieves meeting details, joinMeeting handles joining and recording, and summarizeMeeting processes transcripts. There is no overlap in functionality, making tool selection straightforward for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

The tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (getMeetingInfo, joinMeeting, summarizeMeeting), with minor deviations in capitalization (camelCase). This consistency aids readability and predictability, though the mixed case style is a slight deviation from pure snake_case.

Tool Count3/5

With only 3 tools, the server feels thin for a meeting management domain. While the tools cover core actions, additional operations like creating meetings, updating details, or managing participants are missing, suggesting the scope could be expanded for better utility.

Completeness2/5

There are significant gaps in the tool surface for meeting management. The server lacks create, update, or delete operations for meetings, and does not include tools for handling participants, scheduling, or notifications. This incompleteness will likely cause agent failures in broader workflows.

Maintenance

ActivityInactive
ResponsivenessSyncing

Resources

Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.

Looking for Admin?

If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.

Related MCP Connectors

Related MCP Servers

  • Google Meet MCP Server

    cool-man-vk
    A
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    F
    maintenance
    The Google Meet MCP Server enables AI agents to create, manage, and retrieve Google Meet meetings. Built on the Model Context Protocol, it exposes tools for scheduling, updating, and deleting meetings, making it easy to integrate Google Meet functionalities
    16
    2
    MIT

  • Zoom API MCP Server

    allisonwhilden
    -
    license
    Not graded
    quality
    Not graded
    maintenance
    An MCP Server that enables interaction with Zoom's API through the Multi-Agent Conversation Protocol, allowing users to access and control Zoom's functionality via natural language commands.
    -

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/ChatterBoxIO/chatterboxio-mcp-server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server