transkribus_coll_create_doc_from_ftpIngest a document into a specified collection from an FTP source, with options to delete the source and check for duplicate titles.
Ingest a document into a collection from an FTP source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| fileName | No | File name on FTP | |
| doDeleteImportSource | No | Delete import source after ingest | |
| checkForDuplicateTitle | No | Check for duplicate title |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / properties / titleRemoved value: -{
- "description": "Document title",
- "type": "string"
-}v3.1.0v3.0.0v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond that: it says 'ingest a document into a collection from an FTP source,' which mostly restates the name and title, with no extra detail about authentication, FTP path handling, or side effects beyond the schema's parameters.
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?
One short sentence with the action and source front-loaded, no filler, and no redundant clauses. It is appropriately sized for the description's limited scope.
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?
The description is adequate given 100% schema coverage and existing annotations, but it is thin for a tool with many closely related import siblings. It does not explain when to choose this FTP variant over other create_doc_from_* tools, nor does it mention any FTP-specific prerequisites.
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 all four parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no additional parameter meaning, so the baseline of 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.
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?
States a specific verb ('ingest') and resource ('document into a collection') along with a source type ('FTP'). This distinguishes it from siblings such as transkribus_coll_create_doc_from_iiif and transkribus_coll_create_doc_from_mets, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 phrase 'from an FTP source' implies the usage context: use this tool when importing from FTP. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and does not compare against sibling import tools like add_doc or create_doc_from_mets.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.