Skip to main content
Glama
lazyants

transkribus-mcp-server

by lazyants
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Create Upload from METS

transkribus_upload_create_from_mets

Create a Transkribus upload from a METS XML document, using inline XML or a local file path, for a given collection.

Instructions

Create an upload from a METS XML document.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
collIdYesCollection ID
metsXmlNoInline METS XML document content. Exactly one of "metsXml" or "metsFilePath" is required.
metsFilePathNoAbsolute path to a local METS XML file. Exactly one of "metsXml" or "metsFilePath" is required.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv4.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / metsFilePath
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Absolute path to a local METS XML file. Exactly one of \"metsXml\" or \"metsFilePath\" is required.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / properties / metsUrl
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "URL of the METS file",
-  "type": "string"
-}
    • addedInput schema / properties / metsXml
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Inline METS XML document content. Exactly one of \"metsXml\" or \"metsFilePath\" is required.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "collId",
-  "metsUrl"
-]New value: +[
+  "collId"
+]
  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, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral context beyond restating that the operation creates something from METS XML, so it contributes little beyond the structured hints.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is extremely terse, but it is structurally clean and not bloated.

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 write-oriented upload-creation tool in a large sibling set, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what an "upload" means here, how it differs from similar METS-import siblings, or any side effects, though the schema and annotations cover some basic safety and parameter details.

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 collId, metsXml, and metsFilePath, including the exactly-one-of constraint. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that structured information, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 (Create) and resource (upload from a METS XML document). It is clear what the tool does, but it does not differentiate itself from close siblings such as transkribus_coll_create_doc_from_mets or transkribus_coll_create_doc_from_mets_url.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like upload_create_structure, upload_create_s3, or coll_create_doc_from_mets. There are no stated prerequisites or exclusions, leaving selection entirely to inference.

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