article-review-mcp

by Biogod2020

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Get assembled document

article_review_get_document

Load the complete assembled article for final view, applying all accepted, rejected, or edited patches from the review session.

Instructions

Load the complete assembled document for the Final view.

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_get_document"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`sessionId`	Yes
`pendingPolicy`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.1.0Aug 19, 2026

TDQS

C2.2/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing side effects, permissions, or read-only nature, but it does not. It only says 'load' without indicating whether it modifies anything or requires specific access.

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 a single sentence with no extraneous words, efficiently conveying the core action. It is appropriately structured and front-loaded.

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?

Given the presence of two parameters and the need for context on return values or usage, the description is severely incomplete. It lacks explanation of parameters, potential cases, and any output description.

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?

The description does not mention sessionId or pendingPolicy, leaving their purpose and interplay completely unexplained. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description adds no meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 clearly states the tool loads a document specifically for the Final view, distinguishing it from other get operations like get_feedback or get_page. It uses the verb 'load' and specifies the resource as 'complete assembled document'.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

No guidance is provided regarding when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_page or get_summary. The description lacks any conditional context or examples.

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