transkribus_doc_get_fulldoc_xmlGet the full XML of a Transkribus document by supplying collection and document IDs, with an option to limit the number of transcripts included.
Get the full document in XML format.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| nrOfTranscripts | No | Number of transcripts to include |
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 readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description's 'Get' is consistent with that safety profile. It adds only the output format ('XML') as useful context, but it does not disclose what the full document includes, how nrOfTranscripts affects the result, or any response-size or availability considerations.
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 repetition of parameter details. Every word contributes to conveying the core operation.
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?
For a read-only retrieval with only two required parameters and full schema coverage, the description is minimally viable. However, with no output schema and a large sibling set, it would benefit from explaining what 'full document' encompasses and how this endpoint differs from transkribus_doc_get_fulldoc or METS retrieval.
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%: each parameter (id, collId, nrOfTranscripts) already has a clear description. The tool description adds no parameter-level information beyond that, so 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 resource ('full document') plus the format ('XML'), so an agent can understand the tool's basic purpose. However, it merely rephrases the title and does not distinguish this from the sibling transkribus_doc_get_fulldoc or other XML-related endpoints.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transkribus_doc_get_fulldoc, transkribus_doc_get_mets, or transkribus_coll_list_xml. The description provides no contextual conditions, exclusions, or alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.