transkribus_model_get_train_dataFetch training data for a model by specifying its type and ID. Retrieve paginated datasets for analysis or validation.
Get the training data for a model by type and ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| type | Yes | Model type (e.g. htr, la, ocr) | |
| index | No | Start index (0-based) | |
| nValues | No | Number of values to return |
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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds no additional behavioral context, such as pagination behavior implied by index/nValues, response format, or any potential side effects.
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, making it concise but at the expense of completeness. It could use a more structured format (e.g., listing key parameters or behavioral notes) without increasing length excessively.
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 presence of pagination parameters (index, nValues) and many similar sibling tools, the description fails to explain what training data is returned, how pagination works, or how this tool relates to others. Output schema is absent, leaving the agent without full context.
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% with descriptions for all four parameters. The description only reiterates 'by type and ID' without adding semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline is 3 due to full schema coverage, and no extra meaning is provided.
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), resource (training data), and key identifiers (type and ID). However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like transkribus_model_get_train_data_docs or transkribus_recog_get_train_data, which also retrieve training data but for different scopes.
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 alternatives. With many sibling tools retrieving training data (e.g., transkribus_doc_get_train_data, transkribus_recog_get_train_data), the absence of context or exclusions makes selection ambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.