Academic Writer MCP

Analyser les métadonnées

analyze_document_metadata

Read-onlyIdempotent

Inspect document metadata to identify author, dates, editing software, hidden text, and inconsistencies, with possible legitimate explanations for each finding.

Instructions

Propriétés du fichier (auteur, dates, logiciel, durée d'édition), incohérences, outils nommés, texte masqué, avec les explications légitimes possibles de chaque constat.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "analyze_document_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`format`	Yes
`limits`	Yes
`comments`	No
`findings`	Yes
`properties`	Yes
`document_id`	Yes
`hidden_text`	No
`tracked_changes`	No
`editing_sessions`	No	Sessions d'édition Word enregistrées (rsid).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is established. The description does add one meaningful behavioral note: every finding comes with possible legitimate explanations, indicating an interpretive rather than accusatory output. It says nothing about cost, depth of scanning, or how hidden text is detected.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the file-property content before the analytical findings and the interpretive caveat. Nothing is padded, though the parenthetical list could be trimmed slightly.

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

Completeness3/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. Still, for an analysis tool whose value depends on knowing when to prefer it over sibling metadata tools, the definition leaves the parameter and the selection decision undocumented.

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?

There is one required parameter, document_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden of explaining it — and it says nothing at all about the parameter. The name is largely self-explanatory, which prevents a score of 1, but no format, source, or scope guidance is given.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description enumerates exactly what the tool inspects — file properties (author, dates, software, editing duration), inconsistencies, named tools, hidden text — which is specific content. However, it is a bare noun phrase with no verb, and it never distinguishes itself from close siblings such as get_document_metadata, verify_source_metadata, or inspect_document_provenance. An agent can infer the subject matter but must open the schema to confirm what the tool actually does.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no mention of alternatives, despite several sibling tools that appear to touch the same metadata territory. The agent is left to guess whether this complements or duplicates get_document_metadata.

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

Deploy Server