transkribus_credit_get_productsList available credit products for purchase, with pagination and sorting options to help you browse and compare credits before buying.
List available credit products for purchase.
| 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.
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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile, yet the description adds nothing beyond that. It does not disclose pagination behavior, whether the catalog is account-specific, or whether pricing/auth is required, leaving the schema's index/nValues paging unexplained in prose.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource and free of filler. It is efficient but arguably under-developed given how terse it is for a four-parameter tool.
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 tool is a simple read-only list with no output schema, so the description should ideally hint at the shape of a returned 'credit product' or the paging model. Those gaps are minor but real, leaving the agent with only the schema to infer return structure.
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%, with index, nValues, sortColumn, and sortDirection all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no parameter meaning on top of that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 (list) and resource (credit products) with the qualifier 'for purchase', so an agent knows this is a read-only catalog lookup. However, it does not distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as transkribus_credit_get_collections or transkribus_credit_get_costs, which an agent could easily confuse with product listing.
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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The only implied usage is that this is for discovering purchasable credit products, which the agent must infer from the word 'purchase'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.