transkribus_doc_get_costsRetrieve processing costs for a document by providing collection ID and document ID. Get cost details to manage and estimate transcription expenses.
Get the processing costs for a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0v3.0.0v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations — no mention of units, credit semantics, or auth needs — but since the annotation burden is already satisfied, a 3 is appropriate. No contradiction detected.
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 eight-word sentence that delivers verb, resource, and scope with zero filler. Every word earns its place and the key information is 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?
Complete for a simple two-parameter read operation with rich annotations and fully documented schema. The only minor gap is that 'processing costs' is ambiguous next to the many cost-related siblings, and without an output schema the agent is left to guess the return shape — but the low complexity keeps this near-complete.
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 both parameters clearly documented (id = Document ID, collId = Collection ID). The description adds no parameter-level detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline of 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?
States a specific verb (Get), resource (processing costs), and scope (for a document), which is clear on its own. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the several cost-related siblings (transkribus_recog_get_costs, transkribus_la_get_costs, transkribus_credit_get_costs, transkribus_recog_get_ocr_costs), so it falls short of the top score.
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?
Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its alternatives. Given the cluster of sibling cost tools (recog_get_costs, la_get_costs, credit_get_costs, ocr_costs), an agent receives no help deciding whether this document-level cost query is the right one versus a recognition- or credit-scoped cost query.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.