transkribus_stat_update_page_statusUpdate the status of a specific page or all pages in a collection. Set page status values to manage workflow progress within Transkribus collections.
Update the status of pages in a collection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| pageId | No | Specific page ID to update | |
| status | Yes | New page status value |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description merely says 'Update', which aligns with the write operation implied by annotations (readOnlyHint=false). However, it adds no behavioral details such as allowed status values, side effects on other pages, or whether the operation is scoped to a single page (pageId parameter is optional). The annotations provide idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=true, but the description does not explain these or their implications. The lack of transparency about valid status inputs and the effect of omitting pageId is a significant gap.
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 no unnecessary words. It is appropriately front-loaded and efficient. However, it could be slightly improved by integrating key limitations or clarifying scope without adding bulk.
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 that there is no output schema and the tool has 3 parameters (one optional), the description is too sparse. It does not explain what status values are acceptable, whether updating applies to all pages in the collection when pageId is omitted, or what the expected behavior is. The name suggests a statistics-related update, but the context is unclear. The presence of sibling tools like 'transkribus_stat_get_page_status' suggests a related query tool, but no linkage is provided.
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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters. The description does not add any additional semantic meaning or examples beyond what the schema provides. Therefore, a baseline score 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 states the verb 'Update' and the resource 'status of pages in a collection', making the core action clear. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like 'transkribus_page_update_status_v2' or 'transkribus_page_update_transcript_status', which may cause confusion about which tool to use for specific page status updates.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or situations where the tool should be avoided. The agent receives no help in decision-making.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.