Academic Writer MCP

Créer le plan

create_academic_outline

Build a structured academic outline from project requirements, assigning tasks to subsections and distributing target word counts; replaces the prior draft while preserving it in history.

Instructions

Construit un projet de plan : structure de la convention et de la discipline, tâches des consignes en sous-sections, longueur répartie. Remplace le plan précédent (conservé dans l'historique). Statut « draft ».

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>"
    },
    "name": "create_academic_outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`target_words`	No	Longueur totale visée ; par défaut déduite des exigences ou du type de document.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`sections`	Yes
`domain_id`	Yes
`convention`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`approved_at`	No
`target_words`	Yes
`global_requirement_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses the key side effect: it replaces the previous outline while keeping it in history, and records the result with status 'draft'. That resolves the main ambiguity an agent would have about overwriting work, though permissions and failure behavior are not mentioned.

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?

Three short, front-loaded clauses with no filler: what is built, what it replaces, and the resulting status. The telegraphic French phrasing is dense but each sentence carries distinct information.

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?

With an output schema present and only two parameters, the description covers creation content, the destructive side effect, and the draft status adequately. It is incomplete on parameter meaning (project_id, target_words behavior) and on the relationship to the sibling editing tool.

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?

Only target_words is documented in the schema (50% coverage); project_id has no description in either schema or description text. The description does not mention what target_words does, note the default derivation, or clarify project_id, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Construit un projet de plan') and enumerates the contents it produces: convention/discipline structure, assignment tasks as subsections, and distributed length. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling edit_academic_outline, but the create-vs-replace framing makes the distinction reasonably clear.

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 explicit statement of when to use this tool versus edit_academic_outline or get_academic_outline. The clause about replacing the previous plan implies it can be re-run to regenerate, but alternatives and preconditions are left to inference.

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

Deploy Server