transkribus_model_list_collectionsFind collections linked to a model by specifying its type and ID. Query model resources to retrieve associated collections for efficient management.
List collections associated with a model by type and ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| type | Yes | Model type (e.g. htr, la, ocr) |
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 the tool is read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds no behavioral context beyond this, such as whether results are paginated or what the output contains. It does not contradict 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 a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose. No extraneous information. Slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness.
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 functional for a simple list operation, but lacks details on the return format or scope. With no output schema and many similar siblings, more context (e.g., 'returns a list of collection metadata') would improve completeness.
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%, so both parameters ('id' and 'type') are documented in the schema. The description echoes 'by type and ID' but adds no additional meaning or usage tips beyond the schema.
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 lists collections for a model using type and ID. It is specific about the resource (collections) and action (list). However, it does not differentiate from the very similar sibling `transkribus_model_list_collections_by_id`, which may cause confusion.
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 tool versus alternatives. Given many sibling tools for model operations (add, remove, list by ID), the description should indicate contexts or prerequisites, but it does not.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.