transkribus_doc_get_editorial_declarationRetrieve the editorial declaration for a specific document by providing collection and document IDs. Access essential metadata to understand transcription and editorial policies.
Get the editorial declaration 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, and the description adds no further behavioral context such as return format, not-found behavior, authorization requirements, or how collId and id relate. It essentially restates the operation without disclosing anything beyond what the structured metadata already establishes.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. Every word contributes to stating the operation, making it appropriately concise for a simple read-only getter.
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 only two required parameters, complete schema documentation, and strong read-only annotations, this description is just barely sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool. However, it does not explain what an editorial declaration is, what the response contains, or how this relates to the adjacent editdecl and doc_post_editorial_declaration tools, leaving the contextual picture incomplete.
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 'id' and 'collId' individually documented as 'Document ID' and 'Collection ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, but because the schema carries the full burden, the 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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a specific resource ('the editorial declaration for a document'), so the core action is clear. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as transkribus_doc_post_editorial_declaration or transkribus_editdecl_list_features, but the resource noun makes the primary intent unambiguous.
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 gives no guidance on when to call this tool versus related tools like transkribus_editdecl_* or transkribus_doc_post_editorial_declaration. An agent must rely on the sibling names and annotations to infer the appropriate context, because the description itself provides no when-to-use or when-not-to-use information.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.