article-review-mcp

by Biogod2020

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Edit patch output

article_review_edit_patch

Replaces an article patch with human-edited text, using version checks and idempotency keys to ensure safe, repeatable updates.

Instructions

Save a human-authored replacement for one patch.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "sessionId": "<sessionId>",
      "patchId": "<patchId>",
      "editedText": "<editedText>",
      "expectedVersion": "<expectedVersion>",
      "idempotencyKey": "<idempotencyKey>"
    },
    "name": "article_review_edit_patch"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`offset`	No
`status`	No
`patchId`	Yes
`topicId`	No
`sessionId`	Yes
`editedText`	Yes
`contextMode`	No
`idempotencyKey`	Yes
`expectedVersion`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'save' and 'replacement', but does not state whether this overwrites the original, the idempotency semantics (though idempotencyKey is in the schema), concurrency controls (expectedVersion), or any potential side effects. The description does not contradict annotations, but it is severely under-informative.

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 sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the verb and object. However, it is too brief to be considered fully effective; still, for conciseness alone, it earns points for brevity and lack of fluff.

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

Completeness1/5

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

The tool is complex (11 parameters, 5 required, no output schema, no annotations), yet the description provides almost no context. It fails to explain what a 'patch' is in this domain, how the replacement is applied, or what constitutes a valid 'editedText'. The description is far from complete for an agent to safely invoke this tool.

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

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not mention any parameters. With 11 parameters (5 required), including critical ones like sessionId, patchId, editedText, expectedVersion, and idempotencyKey, the description fails to provide any meaning beyond the raw schema. The agent cannot infer parameter roles from the description alone.

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 the action (save) and resource (a patch), and specifies that it is a human-authored replacement. It is clear enough to distinguish from typical read tools, but does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool article_review_edit_hunk, which likely handles a more granular edit. The phrase 'replacement for one patch' suggests a whole-patch edit, but this is implicit.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. With 17 sibling tools, the lack of any usage direction leaves the agent without clear decision support.

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