transkribus_doc_get_validation_dataRetrieve validation data for a specific document by providing its collection ID and document ID, enabling assessment of transcription accuracy.
Get the validation data for a document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no behavioral context beyond these annotations, such as whether the data is paginated, how it is formatted, or any rate limits. The description fails to add value beyond the structured fields.
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, short sentence (8 words) that efficiently communicates the basic action. It is concise and front-loaded, but the extreme brevity may sacrifice necessary detail. However, within the conciseness dimension, it is appropriately sized and not verbose.
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 the lack of an output schema and the presence of many sibling tools, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what 'validation data' specifically refers to in this context, nor does it hint at the return format or structure. For a tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, the description should provide more context to aid the agent in understanding the tool's output.
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 coverage is 100% (both collId and id are described in the schema). The description does not add any semantic information about the parameters beyond what the schema provides. According to the rubric, when schema coverage is high, the baseline is 3 even without parameter info in the description.
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 resource 'the validation data for a document'. However, it does not distinguish this from similar sibling tools like transkribus_doc_get_train_data or transkribus_model_get_validation_data. The purpose is clear but lacks specificity to differentiate among closely related tools.
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. It does not specify prerequisites, such as requiring the document to belong to a collection or that validation data is typically associated with model training. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.