transkribus_coll_create_iob_importCreate documents in a Transkribus collection by importing an IOB file. Specify the document ID, target collection ID, and file name to generate documents from the IOB data.
Create documents from an IOB import.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Document ID | |
| collId | No | Target collection ID | |
| fileName | No | IOB file name |
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 say the operation is not read-only, not idempotent, and open-world, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the bare creation statement. It does not explain side effects, whether an existing document is modified, what happens to the IOB data, or what the caller should expect afterward. No contradiction exists, but the description contributes little beyond the annotations.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the action and the source format. There is no redundancy with the title or schema.
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?
Despite full schema coverage, an agent is left without enough context to call this safely: no output schema, no explanation of what 'IOB import' means operationally, and no clarification of the optional-looking 'id' parameter. The tool is a non-idempotent creation action with open-world effectss, so more guidance about file source, target collection, and expected result is needed.
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 the parameters are already documented individually. The description adds no extra meaning about how 'id', 'collId', and 'fileName' relate to the IOB import process. Baseline 3 applies because the schema carries the burden.
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 ('Create') and resource ('documents from an IOB import'), clearly distinguishing this tool from sibling document-creation tools like from_mets, from_pdf, and from_iii. The format, IOB, is the key discriminator and is front and center.
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 IOB import' gives a clear contextual trigger: use this tool when the source data is an IOB-format import. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, but the IOB-specific context is strong enough that an agent can decide when this tool applies.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.