transkribus_page_lockLock or unlock a specific page in a Transkribus document to manage editing permissions. Provide collection ID, document ID, page number, and a boolean lock flag.
Lock or unlock a page for editing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Document ID | |
| page | Yes | Page number | |
| type | No | Whether to lock (true) or unlock (false) the page | |
| 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 indicate non-readOnly (destructiveHint false, but idempotentHint true). The description adds minimal context: 'for editing' implies preventing concurrent edits. It doesn't elaborate on state change effects or conflicts.
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?
A single short sentence is concise and front-loaded. However, it could be slightly improved by including quick action guidance (e.g., 'Set type to true to lock'). Still efficient.
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?
For a simple boolean action tool with good annotations and schema, the description is minimally complete. It lacks mention of return value or side effects (e.g., locking prevents other edits), but the simplicity reduces need for more.
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 clear descriptions for all 4 parameters. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline score of 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 'Lock or unlock a page for editing' clearly states the action and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like transkribus_page_is_locked (check status) and transkribus_page_list_locks (list locks) by being an action-oriented tool, though not explicitly.
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 on when to lock vs unlock, or when to use this tool instead of alternatives like transkribus_page_is_locked. The description lacks context for decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.