Academic Writer MCP

Vérifier la structure

check_document_structure

Read-onlyIdempotent

Compares a document's structure against its project template to flag missing required sections, incorrect order or numbering, empty sections, and remaining placeholders.

Instructions

Compare la structure au gabarit du projet (type de document, convention ru/fr/intl, domaine) : sections obligatoires absentes, ordre, numérotation des titres, sections vides ou très courtes, [À COMPLÉTER] restants. Gabarit indicatif : les consignes de l'établissement priment.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "check_document_structure"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	No
`document_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`label`	Yes
`issues`	Yes
`notice`	No		Gabarit indicatif : les exigences de l'établissement, de la кафедра ou de la revue priment toujours sur ce contrôle.
`sections`	Yes
`template`	Yes	Gabarit utilisé (type de document, convention, domaine).
`headings_found`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond them: the precise dimensions checked, the treatment of near-empty sections, detection of leftover [À COMPLÉTER] placeholders, and the caveat that the template is indicative rather than authoritative.

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 core action is front-loaded in the first clause and the checklist is compact. The parenthetical convention list (ru/fr/intl, domaine) is slightly dense but earns its place; nothing is padded.

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 the checks are well specified. What is missing for a tool of this scope is parameter guidance — which identifiers to pass, whether they are optional, and how the two nullable defaults interact — leaving the agent to guess at invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and both parameters (project_id, document_id) are nullable with no defaults explained. The description only alludes to 'gabarit du projet', which hints at project_id but says nothing about document_id or what happens when either is null — the biggest gap in this definition.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Compare la structure au gabarit du projet') and enumerates the exact checks performed: missing mandatory sections, ordering, heading numbering, empty/short sections, remaining [À COMPLÉTER]. The enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like check_formatting or check_language, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is only implied by the enumerated checks; there is no statement of when to run this versus check_consistency/check_formatting, nor of prerequisites (e.g. whether a template must first be fetched via get_document_structure_template). The note that 'les consignes de l'établissement priment' is a useful precedence caveat but not a when-to-use rule.

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

Deploy Server