transkribus_job_getRetrieve detailed information about a specific Transkribus processing job by its ID to track progress, check results, or diagnose issues.
Get details of a specific job by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource 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 'get details', such as what fields are returned, error conditions, or rate limits. For a tool with rich annotations, more context would be beneficial.
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 concise sentence that communicates the essential purpose without extraneous words. No wasted text.
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, the description should elaborate on what 'details' includes (e.g., status, progress, creation time). The tool is relatively simple, but the description leaves ambiguity about the return structure, which is important for an agent to decide if this tool meets its needs.
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 for parameters is 100%, and the description does not add additional meaning to the 'id' parameter beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema handles the semantics.
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 that the tool retrieves details for a specific job using its ID. It differentiates from sibling tools like 'transkribus_job_list' and 'transkribus_job_count' by specifying it is for a single job, but does not explicitly contrast with other get-type tools like 'transkribus_job_get_errors'.
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 indicates basic usage: get details by ID. However, it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., job_list for summaries, job_get_errors for error details) or any prerequisites or limitations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.