transkribus_upload_create_s3Create a Transkribus upload from an S3 source by providing the collection ID, bucket, and object key to begin processing.
Create an upload from an S3 source.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Upload ID | |
| s3Key | No | S3 object key | |
| title | No | Document title | |
| collId | Yes | Collection ID | |
| s3Bucket | No | S3 bucket name |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, which aligns with the description's implication of a write operation. However, the description adds no behavioral details beyond annotations, such as side effects, required permissions, or what constitutes an 'upload'.
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, which is concise but perhaps overly minimal. It front-loads the action but lacks structure and additional context that could be included without 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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain the return value or the process after creation. The openWorldHint suggests unknown side effects, but the description fails to provide completeness.
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 documentation coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional meaning or examples for the parameters (collId, id, s3Bucket, s3Key, title).
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 ('Create an upload') and specifies the source ('from an S3 source'). This distinguishes it from sibling upload creation tools like 'transkribus_upload_create_from_mets' and 'transkribus_upload_create_structure'.
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, nor are there prerequisites or context about the upload process. The description is purely declarative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.