transkribus_doc_has_affiliationDetermine if a document in a Transkribus collection has an affiliation. Supply collection ID and document ID to receive a boolean result.
Check if a document has an affiliation.
| 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, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no extra behavioral detail beyond purpose, such as what an 'affiliation' is or whether the tool returns a boolean directly, but it is consistent with the annotations.
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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to stating 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 simple read-only predicate with documented parameters and strong annotations, the description is minimally viable. However, there is no output schema and the description never explains what 'affiliation' means nor what a true/false result signifies, leaving a meaningful gap for an agent.
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 collId and id having clear names, integer types, and descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-level meaning, such as how collId and id jointly define the document/affiliation being checked.
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 clear action ('Check if...has an affiliation') and resource (a document). It is not tautological and conveys that this is a boolean predicate, though 'affiliation' remains somewhat domain-specific and no explicit differentiation from sibling metadata/list-collection tools is given.
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 predicate versus alternatives such as transkribus_doc_get_metadata or transkribus_doc_list_collections. The description implies a simple existence check but does not state when that check is preferred over other document query tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.