transkribus_coll_activity_recognitionRetrieve recognition activity records for a collection, using optional start and end timestamps to filter and analyze HTR/OCR processing events.
Get recognition activity records for a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | No | End timestamp (epoch ms) | |
| from | No | Start timestamp (epoch ms) | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the description's claim of 'Get' is consistent. However, the description adds no extra behavior details beyond what annotations and schema imply.
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 is concise and front-loaded. However, it could include more detail without sacrificing brevity.
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 no output schema and many sibling tools, the description lacks an explanation of what constitutes 'recognition activity' or the return format. Adequate for a simple read, but incomplete for full understanding.
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 parameters are self-explanatory. Description adds no additional semantics about parameter usage or format.
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?
Description clearly states the action (Get), resource (recognition activity records), and scope (for a collection), distinguishing it from siblings like transkribus_user_activity_recognition and transkribus_coll_activity_saves.
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 alternative activity tools such as transkribus_coll_activity_saves. The description does not provide context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.