transkribus_crowdsource_subscribeSubscribe to a crowdsourcing project for a collection by supplying its collection ID, allowing users to join and receive updates.
Subscribe to a crowdsourcing project for a collection.
| 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 indicate readOnlyHint=false (write operation), destructiveHint=false (non-destructive), and idempotentHint=false (not idempotent), but the description adds no additional behavioral context such as side effects, permissions, or what happens if already subscribed.
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 wasted words. However, it could be more informative while still being concise.
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), the description is adequate but lacks important context about the subscription action's effects and prerequisites. The openWorldHint suggests external effects, but these are not explained.
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 describes 'collId' as 'Collection ID', giving basic meaning. The description does not add any further parameter semantics, but with 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. 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 clearly states the verb 'subscribe' and the resource 'crowdsourcing project for a collection', which differentiates it from sibling tools like transkribus_crowdsource_unsubscribe and transkribus_crowdsource_list. However, it lacks specificity about what subscribing entails (e.g., notifications, participation).
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, nor any prerequisites or context (e.g., required authentication or collection ownership). The agent has no information to decide if this is the right tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.