Initialises a paper corpus by creating the config, _quarto.yml, and papers/ directory, so agents can scaffold a new academic writing project before drafting sections.
Initialise a paper corpus (config, _quarto.yml, papers/ directory).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No | ||
| engine | No | ||
| directory | No | . | |
| papers_dir | No | papers |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the concrete side effect of writing config, _quarto.yml and a papers/ directory. It does not say whether existing files are overwritten, what happens on a non-empty directory, or what the `force` flag changes, so the destructive/overwrite profile stays unstated.
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?
One compact sentence with the action front-loaded and no filler. It is arguably too terse for a 4-parameter mutating tool, but every word present earns its place.
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 file-creating initializer with four undocumented parameters, no annotations and no output schema, the description is missing overwrite/force behavior, engine selection meaning, target directory semantics, and what the tool reports back. The agent cannot call this confidently without guessing.
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 0%, so the description must compensate, but three of four parameters (force, engine, directory) get no mention at all. Only 'papers/' loosely hints at papers_dir, leaving the enum choice for engine and the semantics of force entirely undocumented.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Initialise a paper corpus') and enumerates the artifacts produced (config, _quarto.yml, papers/ directory). This implicitly separates it from paper_open_corpus/paper_close_corpus, though it never names those siblings explicitly.
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 indication of when to call this versus paper_open_corpus, paper_new, or paper_bib_init, and no noted prerequisites (e.g. must the corpus be absent or already exist). The agent must infer positioning from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.