transkribus_model_add_collectionAdd a collection to a model by type and model ID. Link an existing collection to an HTR, LA, or OCR model for training or recognition.
Add a collection to a model by type and model ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | Yes | Model type (e.g. htr, la, ocr) | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID to add | |
| modelId | Yes | Model/HTR ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Input schema / properties / type / patternAdded value: +"^[^/\\s]+$"v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructive (destructiveHint=false), but the description adds no additional behavioral context. It does not mention side effects, required permissions, or what happens if the collection is already associated with the model.
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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is somewhat sparse.
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 mutation tool with no output schema, the description omits success indicators, error conditions, and prerequisites (e.g., model must exist). Given the context signals (3 required params, no output schema), the description is insufficiently complete.
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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description merely restates the purpose of type and modelId without adding new meaning. Baseline score 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 action ('Add a collection to a model') and identifies key parameters ('by type and model ID'). However, it does not differentiate from siblings like transkribus_model_add_collection_by_id, which likely serves a similar purpose with a different identifier.
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 versus related siblings (e.g., transkribus_model_add_collection_by_id, transkribus_model_remove_collection). The agent receives no contextual advice on prerequisites or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.