transkribus_upload_get_bulk_doc_metadataProvide a collection ID to retrieve metadata for all uploaded documents at once, simplifying bulk review and record-keeping.
Retrieve bulk document metadata for uploads.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| collId | No | Collection ID |
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, destructiveHint false, idempotentHint true, and openWorldHint true, indicating safe, idempotent reads. The description adds no further behavioral context (e.g., what metadata fields are returned, pagination behavior, or rate limits). It does not contradict annotations.
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 extremely concise—one short sentence. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action and resource. However, it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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?
Despite having only one parameter and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It fails to explain what 'bulk metadata' entails, what the return format looks like, or how to use the tool effectively. A retrieval tool should provide more context.
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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter collId, which has a clear description ('Collection ID'). The tool description adds no additional semantics or guidance about the parameter (e.g., optionality, default behavior when omitted). Baseline 3 applies since schema is sufficient.
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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('bulk document metadata'), and specifies the domain ('for uploads'). It distinguishes from sibling upload tools like status or update, though not explicitly.
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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as transkribus_upload_get_status or transkribus_upload_get_bulk_isad_metadata. The context of use is implied but not clarified.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.