transkribus_page_get_curr_transcriptRetrieve the current transcript for a specific page by providing collection ID, document ID, and page number.
Get the current transcript for a page.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| page | Yes | Page number | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID |
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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the read-only safety profile is covered. The description adds little beyond the basic operation; it does not explain what 'current' means, how the current transcript is selected, or what happens if no transcript exists. With annotations present, this is acceptable but not highly informative.
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, 'Get the current transcript for a page.', which is front-loaded with the verb and resource and contains no filler. It is appropriately concise for a simple read operation.
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 simple read-only nature, the annotations and schema cover most operational needs. However, the description leaves important selection context unexplained, particularly what makes a transcript 'current' and how this tool differs from transkribus_page_get_transcript. Without an output schema, the agent also receives no indication of the response format.
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%, with id described as 'Document ID', page as 'Page number', and collId as 'Collection ID'. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed what the schema already provides.
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 clear verb ('Get'), resource ('current transcript'), and scope ('for a page'), so the basic purpose is unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish itself from siblings like transkribus_page_get_transcript, transkribus_page_list_transcripts, or transkribus_page_get_plaintext, leaving the meaning of 'current' relative to those tools unclear.
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 usage context is provided. The description does not say when to choose this tool over transkribus_page_get_transcript or transkribus_page_list_transcripts, nor does it mention any exclusions, prerequisites, or alternatives. The only implied guidance is that the user wants the current transcript.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.