transkribus_doc_get_metadataRetrieve metadata for any document by providing its collection ID and document ID. Get essential details to manage your Transkribus documents efficiently.
Get metadata 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 safe read-only behavior is well covered. The description does not contradict these annotations, but it also adds no behavioral context beyond the basic operation, such as what metadata fields are returned or whether collection membership affects the result.
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 efficient sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. It is front-loaded with the verb and resource, though it is slightly too sparse to earn a 5 since it misses an opportunity to add distinguishing context.
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 simple read-only operation with rich annotations and fully documented parameters, this is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and no mention of what metadata is included, and the lack of sibling differentiation means an agent may not confidently pick this over document stats, METS, or full-document tools.
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 provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters: 'Document ID' and 'Collection ID'. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage, but it does not explain the relationship between collId and id.
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 'Get' and the resource 'metadata for a document', so an agent can tell this is a document-level metadata read. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_coll_get_metadata or transkribus_page_get_metadata, but including the word 'document' provides basic resource disambiguation.
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 usage is implied: call this when you need metadata for a document. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer this over related sibling tools such as transkribus_doc_get_stats, transkribus_doc_get_mets, or transkribus_doc_get_fulldoc, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.