article-review-mcp

by Biogod2020

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set patch decision

article_review_set_patch_decision

Set a patch's status to accepted, rejected, or reset during article review, using session and patch IDs with version control and idempotency.

Instructions

Accept, reject, or reset 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>",
      "status": "<status>",
      "expectedVersion": "<expectedVersion>",
      "idempotencyKey": "<idempotencyKey>"
    },
    "name": "article_review_set_patch_decision"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`offset`	No
`status`	Yes
`patchId`	Yes
`topicId`	No
`sessionId`	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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden, but it only lists core verbs and the target resource. It fails to mention expectedVersion concurrency checks, idempotencyKey requirements, the meaning or consequences of 'reset', or what the response contains.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally concise. However, it is so terse that it omits essential parameter and behavioral context, preventing a perfect score.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, 5 required, no annotations, and no output schema, this one-sentence description is deeply inadequate. It does not explain versioning, idempotency, status semantics, or return behavior, making safe and correct invocation unlikely.

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 adds no meaning to any of the 10 parameters. Especially problematic are required fields like expectedVersion and idempotencyKey, and the status enum contains values like 'all', 'pending', 'edited' while the description says 'reset'—leaving the agent without a reliable mapping.

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 a clear action ('Accept, reject, or reset') on a specific resource ('one patch'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like article_review_bulk_decide or article_review_set_decision. However, 'reset' does not map cleanly to the status enum values, introducing minor ambiguity.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives; only the phrase 'one patch' implies this is for single-patch decisions. It does not mention bulk decision tools, article-level decisions, or any prerequisites such as allowable current patch state.

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