transkribus_credit_get_collectionsList collections associated with a credit package by providing its ID. Use it to check which collections belong to a specific credit package.
List collections associated with a specific credit package.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds that it lists collections, which is consistent but does not reveal additional behavioral traits beyond what annotations provide (e.g., potential error responses or pagination).
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, well-formed sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words or redundancy.
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, and strong annotations, the description is minimally adequate. However, it lacks details about the return format (e.g., list of collection objects) and error handling, which could be helpful.
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%, and the description does not add any meaning beyond the schema's 'Resource ID' description. Baseline 3 is appropriate as no extra value is provided.
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 ('List') and resource ('collections') with a qualifier ('associated with a specific credit package'). It clearly states the tool's function. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like transkribus_credit_get or transkribus_credit_list_by_user, though the scope is distinct.
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 implies usage when needing collections for a credit package, but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., transkribus_coll_credit_list) or any prerequisites (e.g., how to get the credit package ID).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.