现在你可以在人工智能的帮助下安排 Zoom 会议
list my meetings
list my upcoming meetings
Schedule a meeting at today 3 pm with a introduce mcp topic
delete the latest meeting
delete the 86226580854 meeting
Retrieve the latest meeting's details
Retrieve 86226580854 meeting's details
Related MCP server: Zoom API MCP Server
获取 Zoom 客户端 ID、Zoom 客户端密钥和账户 ID
配置 MCP 服务器
构建应用程序并选择服务器到服务器 OAuth 应用程序
添加范围 > 会议 > 选择所有会议权限
激活您的应用程序，然后您可以在应用程序凭证页面中获取帐户 ID 、客户端 ID 、客户端密钥
{
"mcpServers": {
"zoom-mcp-server": {
"command": "npx",
"args": ["-y", "@yitianyigexiangfa/zoom-mcp-server@latest"],
"env": {
"ZOOM_ACCOUNT_ID": "${ZOOM_ACCOUNT_ID}",
"ZOOM_CLIENT_ID": "${ZOOM_CLIENT_ID}",
"ZOOM_CLIENT_SECRET": "${ZOOM_CLIENT_SECRET}"
}
}
}
}Create a meeting
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| agenda | No | The meeting's agenda. | New Meeting's agenda |
| start_time | No | The meeting's start time. This supports local time and GMT formats.To set a meeting's start time in GMT, use the yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ssZ date-time format. For example, 2020-03-31T12:02:00Z. To set a meeting's start time using a specific timezone, use the yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ss date-time format and specify the timezone ID in the timezone field. If you do not specify a timezone, the timezone value defaults to your Zoom account's timezone. You can also use UTC for the timezone value. Note: If no start_time is set for a scheduled meeting, the start_time is set at the current time and the meeting type changes to an instant meeting, which expires after 30 days. current time is 2026-05-04T21:45:46.369Z. | |
| timezone | No | Timezone for the meeting's start time. The Current timezone is UTC. | |
| topic | No | The meeting's topic. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description provides no behavioral traits beyond the trivial 'Create a meeting'. Important details like authentication, side effects, or response are missing.
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 sentence that merely repeats the tool name, failing to earn its place by providing any useful information beyond the identifier.
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?
With 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is severely inadequate; it does not explain return values, prerequisites, or expected behavior.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for parameters.
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 is a tautology, restating the tool name without adding specificity or distinguishing from siblings like delete_a_meeting.
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 explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, but the sibling tools are clearly different operations (delete, get, list), so usage is implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Delete a meeting with a given ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the meeting to delete. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, and the description only states deletion by ID. Does not disclose irreversibility, side effects, or required permissions.
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?
Single sentence conveying all essential information with no wasted words.
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 deletion tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description provides adequate information. However, could mention that deletion is irreversible.
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 id parameter is fully described. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in baseline score.
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 verb 'Delete' and the resource 'meeting' with a required ID. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like create_meeting, get_a_meeting_details, and list_meetings.
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 tool versus alternatives. Lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where deletion is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Retrieve the meeting's details with a given ID
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | The ID of the meeting. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden of disclosing behavior. It correctly identifies the operation as a read ('Retrieve'), but omits any details about the returned data, permissions, or side effects.
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, short sentence with no unnecessary words. However, it lacks any structural elements such as return value explanation or usage examples.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations) and the presence of sibling tools, the description is adequate but minimal. It does not explain what 'details' are returned or any limits.
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% (the 'id' parameter is described as 'The ID of the meeting'). The tool description adds no additional semantic value beyond what the schema provides.
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 uses a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('meeting details') with a clear identifier ('given ID'). It naturally distinguishes from siblings: create_meeting, delete_a_meeting, list_meetings.
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 implies use when a specific meeting ID is known, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide any context about prerequisites or restrictions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List scheduled meetings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | The type of meeting. Choose from upcoming, scheduled or previous_meetings. upcoming - All upcoming meetings; scheduled - All valid previous (unexpired) meetings and upcoming scheduled meetings; previous_meetings - All the previous meetings; | upcoming |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description indicates a read operation (listing) with no destructive hints, but lacks explicit behavioral details such as pagination, ordering, or authentication requirements. Annotations are absent, so the description partially fulfills the transparency burden.
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 concise (three words) but is too brief to convey important details about the parameter and context, making it minimally adequate.
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?
Given the single parameter with full schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides a basic idea but omits default behavior, return format, and any caveats. It is acceptable for a simple tool but not rich.
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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'type', which already explains the options. The tool description adds no additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.
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 tool lists scheduled meetings, but does not differentiate from sibling tools like get_a_meeting_details or hint at the filtering parameter that modifies the set of meetings returned.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., get_a_meeting_details for a single meeting) or when to use different values of the 'type' parameter.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v0.7.4create_meeting1 field changedInput schema / properties / start_time / descriptionPrevious value: -"The meeting's start time. This supports local time and GMT formats.To set a meeting's start time in GMT, use the yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ssZ date-time format. For example, 2020-03-31T12:02:00Z. To set a meeting's start time using a specific timezone, use the yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ss date-time format and specify the timezone ID in the timezone field. If you do not specify a timezone, the timezone value defaults to your Zoom account's timezone. You can also use UTC for the timezone value. Note: If no start_time is set for a scheduled meeting, the start_time is set at the current time and the meeting type changes to an instant meeting, which expires after 30 days. current time is 2025-08-18T14:20:49.346Z."New value: +"The meeting's start time. This supports local time and GMT formats.To set a meeting's start time in GMT, use the yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ssZ date-time format. For example, 2020-03-31T12:02:00Z. To set a meeting's start time using a specific timezone, use the yyyy-MM-ddTHH:mm:ss date-time format and specify the timezone ID in the timezone field. If you do not specify a timezone, the timezone value defaults to your Zoom account's timezone. You can also use UTC for the timezone value. Note: If no start_time is set for a scheduled meeting, the start_time is set at the current time and the meeting type changes to an instant meeting, which expires after 30 days. current time is 2026-05-04T21:45:46.369Z."v1.0.0create_meetingdelete_a_meetingget_a_meeting_detailslist_meetingsEach tool targets a distinct operation on meetings: create, delete, get details, and list. There is no overlap in functionality, making it easy for an agent to select the correct tool.
Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., create_meeting, list_meetings), but two include the article 'a' (delete_a_meeting, get_a_meeting_details) which is a minor inconsistency.
With 4 tools, the server is well-scoped for meeting management. The number is appropriate for the domain and avoids redundancy.
The tool surface covers create, read, delete, and list operations but lacks an update meeting tool. This is a notable gap for full CRUD coverage in meeting management.
Unclaimed servers have limited discoverability.
If you are the server author, to access and configure the admin panel.
Zoom workspace server for meetings, chat, docs, recordings, and AI-generated collaboration content.
Zoom Meetings server for meeting search, recordings, transcripts, summaries, and meeting assets.
Zoom Revenue Accelerator server for sales insights, conversations, and deal intelligence.
Zoom Tasks server for creating, updating, assigning, and synchronizing task workflows.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/JavaProgrammerLB/zoom-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server
