transkribus_crowd_post_messagePost a message to a collection's crowd project by supplying the collection ID and message content.
Store a new message in the crowd project of a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| message | Yes | Message content to store |
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 (write operation), destructiveHint=false (not destructive), and openWorldHint=true (side effects). The description adds little beyond stating it 'stores' a message, omitting details like whether it appends or overwrites, limits, or return behavior. The brief text does not elaborate on side effects hinted by openWorldHint=true.
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 sentence that directly communicates the tool's action with no extraneous information. It is front-loaded and efficient, fitting the conciseness ideal.
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 (two parameters, no output schema) and annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It explains the basic operation but lacks context about crowd projects, permissions, or side effects. For a write operation with openWorldHint=true, more completeness would improve agent understanding.
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% with descriptions for both parameters ('Collection ID' and 'Message content to store'). The description reinforces that the message is stored in a crowd project of a collection, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. 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 'Store a new message in the crowd project of a collection' clearly states the verb 'Store' and the resource 'message' in a specific context. It distinguishes from sibling tools like transkribus_crowd_delete_messages (delete) and transkribus_crowd_post_milestone (post milestone) by focusing on storing a message. However, it could be more precise about what a 'crowd project' entails.
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 does not mention prerequisites, such as requiring a collection to have a crowd project, or when not to use it. Implied usage is only for storing a message, but explicit context is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.