transkribus_file_checkVerify if a file exists at a given path and retrieve its current status by specifying the file path and name.
Check the status or existence of a file at a given path.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | File path to check | |
| fileName | No | File name to check |
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, openWorldHint=true, so the description carries a low burden. However, it adds no behavioral details beyond 'status or existence', leaving ambiguity about what 'status' entails or the return format.
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 sentence that directly conveys the tool's purpose without any extraneous words. It is front-loaded and efficient.
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?
The description is minimal for a simple read-only check, but it does not specify the return value or behavior when the file is missing. Given the lack of an output schema, some additional detail would be beneficial.
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%, meaning the schema already describes both parameters (path and fileName) with clear descriptions. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond restating that a file path is involved, so a 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 clearly states the tool checks the status or existence of a file at a given path, using a specific verb (check) and resource (file). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like transkribus_file_list_files, which list files rather than check a single file.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like transkribus_file_list_files or transkribus_file_list_dirs. The description lacks context for appropriate use or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.