transkribus_server_download_client_fileDownload a named client file from the Transkribus server. Specify the file name, and optionally filter by release or provide a libraries map to retrieve the exact file.
Download a specific client file by name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| libsMap | No | Libraries map | |
| fileName | Yes | Name of the file to download | |
| isRelease | No | Filter release files |
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 destructiveHint=false, so the agent knows it's a safe read operation. The description adds the concept of downloading by name but does not elaborate on what the download entails (e.g., file type, size, side effects). Given the annotation coverage, the description provides marginal additional behavioral context.
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 concise sentence that is front-loaded with the key action. However, it is so brief that it omits potentially important context, though it avoids verbosity.
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 the presence of 3 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens after download (e.g., returns binary data, a URL, or a file path), nor does it address the relationship with the sibling tool. The tool's role in the broader system is unclear.
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?
The input schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for all three parameters (fileName, isRelease, libsMap). The description does not add any new information about parameter meaning or usage beyond 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 (download) and resource (client file) and specifies filtering by name. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'transkribus_server_download_client_file_new', missing an opportunity to clarify which tool to use for which version.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like the 'new' variant. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, expected use cases, or exclusions, leaving the agent without decision support.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.