transkribus_coll_credit_historyRetrieve a collection's credit usage history with sorting and pagination options to monitor consumption by collection ID.
Get the credit usage history for a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Start index (0-based) | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| nValues | No | Number of results (-1 for all) | |
| sortColumn | No | Column to sort by | |
| sortDirection | No | Sort direction: asc or desc |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Input schema / properties / index / descriptionPrevious value: -"Start index"New value: +"Start index (0-based)"Input schema / properties / index / minimumPrevious value: --9007199254740991New value: +0Input schema / properties / nValues / descriptionPrevious value: -"Number of values"New value: +"Number of results (-1 for all)"Input schema / properties / sortDirection / descriptionPrevious value: -"Sort direction (asc/desc)"New value: +"Sort direction: asc or desc"v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the history is collection-scoped, but it does not describe pagination, sorting behavior, or what the returned history contains.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It states the core action immediately and does not bury it under extraneous text.
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 schema and annotations carry most of the structural and safety context, but the description is thin for a tool with five parameters and many adjacent credit-related siblings. It omits return-value expectations and does not help the agent distinguish this from other credit-history endpoints.
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 every parameter is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the collection scope that is already captured by the required collId field.
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 verb and resource: 'Get the credit usage history for a collection.' It is specific and not tautological, but it does not distinguish this tool from several similar credit-history siblings such as transkribus_credit_get_history or transkribus_coll_credit_transactions.
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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool instead of the many other credit-related tools. There is no mention of alternatives, prerequisites, or exclusion conditions, so the agent must infer routing from the name and sibling list alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.