transkribus_recog_get_add_infoRetrieve details for adding a recognition model to a collection. Use collection ID and resource ID to obtain the required information.
Get information about adding a recognition model to collections.
| 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 and idempotentHint=true, so the description's claim of 'Get information' is consistent. However, it does not elaborate on what specific information is returned, potential prerequisites, or any side effects. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond the 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 sentence with 8 words, which is efficient. However, it may be too terse and could benefit from additional structure or details. No wasted words, but under-specification slightly reduces score.
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 there is no output schema, the description should ideally explain what information is returned when adding a recognition model to collections. The current description is minimal and does not provide enough context for an AI agent to fully understand the tool's output or capabilities.
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 both parameters described ('Collection ID' and 'Resource ID'). The description does not add any additional meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Get information about adding a recognition model to collections.' It uses a specific verb and resource. However, it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like transkribus_recog_get or transkribus_recog_add_to_collection, which could cause confusion.
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 use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not provide context for when to choose this over related tools such as transkribus_recog_add_to_collection or transkribus_recog_list_collections. An explicit 'when-not' or mention of alternatives is missing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.