transkribus_recog_list_collectionsList all collections with access to a specific recognition model by providing the model's resource ID and collection ID.
List collections that have access to a recognition model.
| 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 provide readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds that the tool returns collections with access to a model, but does not disclose details like pagination, permissions, or response format.
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, efficient sentence that conveys the tool's purpose without any unnecessary words. Perfectly concise for a simple tool.
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 tool with only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but lacks details about the return structure or any constraints. An agent might need to infer the output format from context or experience.
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%, so the schema already describes both parameters (collId and id). The description does not add any new meaning or context about these parameters; it only repeats the overall purpose.
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 ('list') and the resource ('collections that have access to a recognition model'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like transkribus_recog_list_by_collection which lists models for a collection.
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_model_list_collections or transkribus_recog_list_by_collection. No exclusions or context are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.