transkribus_coll_count_docsCount documents in a Transkribus collection, with optional filters by label, uploader, or deleted status.
Get the number of documents in a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| labelId | No | Filter by label ID | |
| isDeleted | No | Include deleted documents | |
| uploaderId | No | Filter by uploader ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0v3.0.0v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds no extra behavioral context, such as how filters like labelId or isDeleted affect the count. It does not contradict annotations, but it provides minimal additional transparency beyond what the annotations already convey.
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 with no filler words. It immediately conveys the purpose and is perfectly structured for quick comprehension.
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 simplicity of the tool (counting documents), the description is adequately complete. The schema explains all filters, annotations cover safety, and the description implies a numeric return value. No critical information is missing for an agent to call the tool correctly.
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%: each parameter has a description ('Collection ID', 'Filter by label ID', 'Include deleted documents', 'Filter by uploader ID'). The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 states a clear action: 'Get the number of documents in a collection.' It specifies the verb (get), the resource (collection), and the result (count). It does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like transkribus_coll_count or transkribus_coll_count_find_documents, but the scope is unambiguous.
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 such as transkribus_coll_count_find_documents (which likely supports more complex filters) or transkribus_coll_list_docs (which returns documents rather than just a count). The description gives no context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.