transkribus_user_activity_recognitionGet recognition activity history for a specific user by resource ID. Optionally filter by start and end timestamps to track user actions within a given period.
Get recognition activity history for a specific user.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Resource ID | |
| to | No | End timestamp (epoch ms) | |
| from | No | Start timestamp (epoch ms) |
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 and destructiveHint=false, so the description aligns but adds no extra behavioral context beyond stating it's a read operation.
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?
Single sentence with no unnecessary words, fully front-loaded with essential information.
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?
For a simple read operation with good annotations and schema, the description is mostly complete but lacks details on the output format since there is no output schema.
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 parameters are documented. The description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides.
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?
Description clearly states verb 'Get', resource 'recognition activity history', and scope 'for a specific user'. It differentiates from sibling tools like transkribus_coll_activity_recognition and transkribus_user_activity_saves.
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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives. No context about intended scenarios or exclusions provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.