Academic Writer MCP

Contrôler l'intégrité

audit_document_integrity

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies document integrity using SHA-256, checks content-extension consistency, and detects risky elements, hidden text, or concealed AI instructions.

Instructions

Intégrité de la copie (SHA-256), cohérence contenu / extension, éléments à risque, texte masqué et instructions cachées destinées à une IA.

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": "audit_document_integrity"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`findings`	Yes
`sha256_ok`	Yes
`document_id`	Yes
`original_protected`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by disclosing that it looks for hidden text and prompt-injection-style hidden instructions aimed at an AI, which an agent would not guess from the name. It says nothing about scope of the scan, failure modes, or what happens when integrity cannot be verified.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

It is short and front-loads the most distinctive check (SHA-256 integrity), with no filler. But it is a bare noun-phrase list with an awkward line break and no leading verb or sentence structure, which weakens readability rather than saving real space.

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 no explanation, and the annotations cover safety. Still, for an audit tool with only one opaque input, the description omits when to invoke it relative to sibling audits and whether the identifier refers to an imported/project document — gaps an agent must guess at.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Only one parameter exists (document_id) and its name is self-explanatory, so minimal description is needed. However, schema description coverage is 0% and the description never references the parameter or what form the identifier takes, so no meaning is added beyond the schema field name.

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 enumerates the specific checks performed: SHA-256 copy integrity, content/extension coherence, at-risk elements, hidden text, and hidden AI-targeted instructions. That is far more specific than the title 'Contrôler l'intégrité' and distinguishes it from siblings like check_document_structure, analyze_document_metadata, or inspect_document_provenance. It lacks an explicit verb (e.g. 'Audits a document by…'), so it reads as a feature list rather than a statement of action.

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 guidance on when to run this audit versus the many sibling checks, no prerequisites, and no mention of what to do with the results. The agent must infer from the name alone that this is the security/integrity-oriented audit and not a structural or metadata check.

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

Deploy Server