transkribus_processing_get_page_xmlFetch a completed processing job as PAGE XML (2013-07-15) using its processId; returns 404 while the job is still running.
Get a finished Processing API result as PAGE XML (version 2013-07-15). Returns 404 while the job is still running.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| processId | Yes | Process ID returned when the image was submitted |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine runtime behavior not present in the annotations: the 404 response while the job is running, which tells the agent how to interpret failures. It does not mention auth requirements or output encoding details.
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?
Two short sentences, no filler, with the format/version specified first and the failure condition second. Every clause carries information an agent needs.
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?
With no output schema, the description usefully pins down the return format and schema version, which is the key ambiguity for this tool. It does not describe how the XML is wrapped in the response payload, which is a minor remaining gap.
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% and the single parameter is already documented as "Process ID returned when the image was submitted". The description adds no syntax, format, or source detail beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb (Get) and resource (finished Processing API result) plus the concrete output format, PAGE XML version 2013-07-15. It implicitly separates itself from the ALTO sibling by naming the format, but never explicitly names transkribus_processing_get_alto_xml or transkribus_processing_get_status as alternatives.
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?
"Get a finished Processing API result" plus "Returns 404 while the job is still running" gives an actionable precondition: the job must be complete, and a 404 tells the caller to keep polling. No explicit routing to the ALTO or status siblings, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.