transkribus_recog_run_atrRun automatic text recognition on a document or selected pages using a specific model. Provide collection ID, document ID, and optionally page number or model ID to transcribe handwritten or printed text.
Run Automatic Text Recognition on a document or specific pages.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| docId | Yes | Document ID | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| pageNr | No | Page number | |
| modelId | No | Model/HTR ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate mutation (readOnlyHint=false) and non-destructiveness, but the description does not disclose that running ATR likely creates an asynchronous job, consumes credits, or what the side effects are. The openWorldHint=true is not explained.
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?
Single sentence, no redundancy, directly conveys purpose. Efficient for an agent.
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?
No output schema, no mention of job lifecycle (e.g., returns job ID), no explanation of how to monitor or retrieve results. For a complex, asynchronous tool, this is insufficient.
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 covers all parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the description adds marginal value. It implicitly distinguishes that pageNr is for specific pages, but this is already in the schema.
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 ('Run Automatic Text Recognition') and the resource ('a document or specific pages'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like transkribus_recog_run_htr_citlab and transkribus_recog_run_ocr by specifying 'ATR'.
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 (e.g., when to choose ATR over HTR or OCR). Missing context on prerequisites like model selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.