Skip to main content
Glama
lazyants

transkribus-mcp-server

by lazyants
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Bulk Update Document Metadata

transkribus_upload_bulk_update_doc_metadata
Idempotent

Update document metadata in bulk for Transkribus uploads using an inline CSV or a local CSV file path.

Instructions

Bulk update document metadata for uploads from a CSV payload.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
csvNoInline CSV content. Exactly one of "csv" or "csvFilePath" is required.
csvFilePathNoAbsolute path to a local CSV file. Exactly one of "csv" or "csvFilePath" is required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv4.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / csv
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Inline CSV content. Exactly one of \"csv\" or \"csvFilePath\" is required.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / csvFilePath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute path to a local CSV file. Exactly one of \"csv\" or \"csvFilePath\" is required.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / metadata
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Array of document metadata objects to update",
-  "items": {
-    "additionalProperties": {},
-    "propertyNames": {
-      "type": "string"
-    },
-    "type": "object"
-  },
-  "type": "array"
-}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "metadata"
-]
  2. First observedv2.1.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no information on CSV column layout, how per-row failures are handled, whether updates overwrite existing metadata, or any permission requirements for a mutation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single sentence with no wasted words and the operation front-loaded. It is efficient but so terse that it omits information the agent actually needs, bordering on under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a bulk mutation tool with no output schema and no required parameters, the description should at least sketch the CSV expectations and the effect on existing metadata. It leaves the agent without enough to call the tool confidently, especially against the ISAD sibling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 both csv and csvFilePath including the mutual-exclusivity rule. The description's mention of a 'CSV payload' does not add format or syntax detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Bulk update'), resource ('document metadata'), and the input channel ('from a CSV payload'). It is clear about the operation, but it never distinguishes itself from the near-identical sibling transkribus_upload_bulk_update_isad_metadata, so an agent must infer which metadata kind applies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no pointer to alternatives such as transkribus_upload_update_metadata for single-document updates or the ISAD variant. The phrase 'for uploads' is the only contextual signal and it is too thin to route the agent reliably.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools