transkribus_recog_getRetrieve detailed information about a specific recognition model within a collection. Provide collection and resource IDs to access model metadata.
Get details of a recognition model in a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| 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, openWorldHint: true. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond 'Get details', which is consistent. No additional traits (e.g., required permissions, response format) are disclosed, but the annotations cover the safety profile adequately.
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, front-loaded sentence (8 words) with no redundant information. It efficiently communicates the tool's purpose.
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 read-only retrieval tool with two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is sufficient. It could hint at what 'details' include (e.g., metadata, training status), but the openWorldHint annotation reduces the need for exhaustive enumeration. Overall, it meets the minimum viable completeness.
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?
Input schema provides clear descriptions for both parameters (collId: 'Collection ID', id: 'Resource ID') with 100% coverage. The description does not add further meaning beyond what the schema already conveys, so baseline score 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?
The description clearly states the action 'Get', the resource 'details of a recognition model', and the scope 'in a collection'. It effectively distinguishes from sibling tools like transkribus_recog_delete (delete) or transkribus_recog_list_by_collection (list).
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 (e.g., transkribus_recog_list_models to list all models, or transkribus_recog_get_atr for specific model data). No when-to-use or when-not-to-use context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.