Academic Writer MCP

Créer un projet

create_project

Create a new writing project as the first step in an academic, scientific, technical, or professional document workflow, setting its name, document type, and language.

Instructions

Crée un nouveau projet de rédaction (première étape du workflow).

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "document_type": "<document_type>",
      "language": "<language>"
    },
    "name": "create_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Nom du projet (ex. « Mémoire Master — maintenance prédictive »).
`language`	Yes	Langue principale du document : fr, ru ou en.
`discipline`	No	Discipline (ex. « génie mécanique »), si connue.
`description`	No	Description libre du projet.
`document_type`	Yes	Type de document à produire.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`domain_id`	No	Profil disciplinaire confirmé par l'utilisateur.
`convention`	No	Convention de présentation : ru, fr ou intl.
`created_at`	Yes
`discipline`	No
`updated_at`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`document_type`	Yes
`domain_confirmed_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the workflow-ordering hint; it says nothing about duplicate-name handling, whether creation is reversible, or side effects such as provisioning a workspace — the details that would actually help an agent invoke it confidently.

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 short sentence with the workflow position front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.

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, return values need not be explained, and the schema fully documents inputs. What remains missing is behavioral context for a creation tool: duplicate-name behavior, whether it needs a pre-existing workspace, and what the workflow step after creation expects.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%: name, language, document_type, discipline and description are all documented in the schema with examples and enums. The description adds no additional meaning about these parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Crée un nouveau projet de rédaction') and positions it as the first step of the workflow, so the agent knows what is produced. It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as create_academic_outline or update_project, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

'première étape du workflow' implies this is the entry point that must precede outline/document work, which is useful implied guidance. There is no explicit when-not-to-use, no mention of prerequisites (e.g. existing project, required setup), and no named alternative for resuming an existing project.

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

Deploy Server