transkribus_page_get_plaintextRetrieve the plain text transcript of a specific page by providing collection ID, document ID, and page number.
Get the plain text content of a page transcript.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| page | Yes | Page number | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, which adequately convey safety and idempotency. The description does not add additional behavioral details (e.g., what if no transcript exists), but 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, concise sentence with no extraneous words. Every word serves a purpose, making it efficient for an agent to parse quickly.
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 many sibling page tools, the description fails to clarify what 'plain text' entails (e.g., no formatting, tags stripped) or behavior when no transcript is assigned. This reduces completeness for an agent to correctly select and use the tool.
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?
All three parameters are described in the schema with coverage of 100%, but descriptions are minimal ('Collection ID', 'Document ID', 'Page number'). The tool description adds no further semantic context beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 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 (Get) and the resource (plain text content of a page transcript). It is specific and distinguishes from siblings like 'transkribus_page_get_text' by specifying 'plain text', making the purpose unambiguous.
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 vs alternatives such as 'transkribus_page_get_text' or 'transkribus_page_get_curr_transcript'. It does not explain scenarios or exclusions, leaving an agent to guess the appropriate context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.