article-review-mcp

by Biogod2020

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Finalize reviewed article

article_review_finalize

Finalize an article by assembling reviewed patches, with options to preview or write, requiring confirmation and hash verification for overwrites.

Instructions

Preview or safely write the article assembled from accepted, rejected, edited, and pending patches. Overwrite requires confirmation, hash checking, and backup.

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>"
    },
    "name": "article_review_finalize"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`backup`	No
`sessionId`	Yes
`destination`	No
`pendingPolicy`	No
`confirmOverwrite`	No
`expectedBaseHash`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'safely write' and 'Overwrite requires confirmation, hash checking, and backup', which provides safety-critical context. However, it does not fully disclose behaviors for other modes (write_new_file, export_static_html) or the handling of pending patches, leaving some gaps.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is two sentences, directly front-loaded with the primary purpose, and every word adds value. No redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, 4 modes, no output schema, no annotations), the description is too sparse. It does not explain the meaning of each mode, how pendingPolicy affects output, or what the tool returns. The brief safety note helps, but the overall context is incomplete for reliable selection and invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It alludes to several parameters ('preview', 'write', 'overwrite' → mode; 'confirmation' → confirmOverwrite; 'hash checking' → expectedBaseHash; 'backup' → backup), but it does not explain destination, pendingPolicy, or sessionId. This partial coverage is insufficient for a 7-parameter tool.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description specifies the verb ('Preview or safely write'), the resource ('the article'), and the context ('assembled from accepted, rejected, edited, and pending patches'), making it clear and distinct from sibling tools that handle patch decisions/comments. This goes beyond the title 'Finalize reviewed article' and provides a specific, actionable purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description clearly implies when to use the tool for finalizing the assembled article and mentions 'Preview' as an option before writing, giving usage context. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

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