transkribus_credit_createCreate a new Transkribus credit package by specifying type, label, amount, and source package ID to manage credits for document processing.
Create a new credit package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Credit package type | |
| label | No | Label for the credit package | |
| amount | No | Credit amount | |
| sourcePackageId | No | Source credit package ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and openWorldHint=true, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond 'create'. It does not mention authentication needs, side effects (e.g., does it debit from a source?), or whether creation is reversible.
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 unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded.
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 optional parameters and no output schema, the description should explain the purpose of each parameter, return value, and side effects. It is incomplete for a non-idempotent write operation with open world hint.
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 descriptions cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage), but the tool description does not add meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The schema describes each parameter minimally; the description could clarify usage (e.g., relationship between type and amount).
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 verb-resource combination ('Create a new credit package'), but it does not distinguish this tool from sibling credit tools like transkribus_credit_manage or transkribus_credit_handle_order, which may have overlapping functionality.
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 or what prerequisites are required. The description lacks context such as required roles, relation to other credit operations, or typical use cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.