transkribus_coll_get_recent_documentsRetrieve a list of recently accessed documents from Transkribus collections, with options for pagination and sorting to manage your document workflow.
Get recently accessed documents.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| index | No | Start index (0-based) | |
| 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.
v3.1.0v3.0.0v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the basic safety profile is covered. The description adds only the scoping to 'recently accessed documents,' which is mildly useful but does not disclose details like whether the results reflect the current user's access history or a global history.
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 one short sentence with no waste. It is appropriately sized, though it could have earned more by adding sibling differentiation.
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 four parameters (index, nValues, sortColumn, sortDirection) and no output schema, the description is too thin to be complete. It does not specify what fields the returned documents contain, how sorting works, or how this differs from get_recent/get_recent_collections.
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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all four parameters. The description itself adds no meaning beyond the schema; it is the minimal baseline.
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 specific verb ('Get') and resource ('recently accessed documents'), which is clear enough. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_coll_get_recent or transkribus_coll_get_recent_collections, which could overlap in function.
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. The description lacks context such as whether it replaces get_recent or how it differs from get_recent_collections, so an agent has no way to choose among related siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.