transkribus_page_addAdd a new page to a Transkribus document at a specified position using collection ID, document ID, and page number, with optional image URL and file name.
Add a new page to a document at the specified position.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| page | Yes | Page number | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| imgUrl | No | URL of the image to add | |
| fileName | No | File name for the page |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0v3.0.0v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already convey that this is a mutating, non-destructive operation; the description adds the useful detail that the page is inserted at a specified position. However, it does not disclose possible side effects such as renumbering of subsequent pages, auth requirements, or what happens after insertion.
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 one efficient, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant restatement of the title. It communicates the core operation and positional nuance immediately.
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 schema fully documents the five parameters and the annotations cover the mutation safety profile, so the description is adequate for basic invocation. However, because there is no output schema and this is a state-changing operation, the description could have noted whether the call returns the new page identifier or confirms the insertion result.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds only the 'specified position' hint, which maps to the page parameter, but it does not clarify the relationship between imgUrl, fileName, and the actual page data being added.
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 states a specific action ('Add'), a specific resource ('a new page'), and the target container ('a document'), plus the positional modifier ('at the specified position'). This makes the tool's function clear and distinguishable from page deletion, replacement, and retrieval siblings.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transkribus_upload_page or transkribus_page_replace. There is no mention of prerequisites, exclusions, or the conditions under which a user should prefer this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.