transkribus_doc_get_image_namesRetrieve image file names for every page in a document by providing collection and document IDs, enabling quick access to page-level image references.
Get the image file names for all pages in 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 cover the safety profile (read-only, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds the useful 'all pages' scope. It does not disclose output ordering, pagination, or whether a page with no image is omitted, but for a simple read operation this is a moderate gap.
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 front-loaded sentence states the action, scope, and resource with no filler. Every word earns its place.
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 two-parameter, annotation-rich read-only tool this is nearly complete; the operation and inputs are clear. The main omission is the shape/order of the returned image-name list, which would matter if callers expect an exact array format.
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%, so the schema already documents id and collId clearly. The description mentions a document but does not add semantics beyond the schema, meeting the baseline but adding no extra value.
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 uses a specific verb and resource: it retrieves image file names for every page in a document, which distinguishes it from page-ID or page-metadata tools. It does not explicitly call out any sibling, so it stops short of the highest clarity level.
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 provides no guidance on when to prefer this tool over related document/page listers such as transkribus_doc_get_pages or transkribus_doc_get_page_ids, and no when-not-to-use context. The only usage signal is implied by the word 'get'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.