transkribus_coll_remove_favoriteRemove a collection from your Transkribus favorites by providing its collection ID. Simplify workspace management by unfavoriting collections no longer needed.
Remove a collection from the user favorites.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collId | Yes | Collection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey destructiveHint: true and idempotentHint: true, indicating it is a non-read-only but safe repeated operation. The description adds no additional behavioral context beyond what annotations provide, such as what happens if the collection is not currently a favorite or if the user is not authorized.
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, concise sentence with no redundancy. It is appropriately sized for a simple operation, but could include more contextual information without becoming verbose.
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 tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and presence of annotations, the description is minimally sufficient to understand the core action. However, it lacks usage context and relationship to sibling tools, which limits its completeness for effective agent decision-making.
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?
The input schema has 100% description coverage for the single parameter 'collId' (described as 'Collection ID'). The description does not add any extra meaning or constraints beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
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 clearly states the action ('Remove a collection') and the context ('from the user favorites'). It uses a specific verb and resource, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'transkribus_coll_add_favorite'. However, it could be more precise by explicitly noting that it affects the current user's favorites only.
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 its counterpart 'add_favorite' or other collection manipulation tools. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., the collection must already be a favorite) or behavior if the condition is not met.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.