Academic Writer MCP

Télécharger un texte en libre accès

download_open_access

Download the full text of a legally open-access search result and import it into your project as a readable, searchable source document after license verification.

Instructions

Télécharge le texte intégral d'un résultat en LIBRE ACCÈS LÉGAL et l'importe dans le projet comme document source (copie protégée, lisible et cherchable). Licence revérifiée par le serveur ; refusé pour les ouvrages protégés. À faire sur demande de l'utilisateur.

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>",
      "item_id": "<item_id>"
    },
    "name": "download_open_access"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`item_id`	Yes	item_id d'un résultat de find_works_by_topic marqué open_access (arxiv:…, ia:…, doaj:…).
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`item_id`	Yes
`license`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`duplicate`	Yes
`document_id`	Yes
`original_filename`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description adds real value by disclosing the server-side license re-verification, refusal for protected works, and that the imported item becomes a 'copie protégée, lisible et cherchable'. It does not address idempotency behavior (what happens on a repeat download) despite idempotentHint=false.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the action before the license caveat and the invocation trigger. Minor redundancy in the capitalized 'LIBRE ACCÈS LÉGAL' emphasis, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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 no explanation, and the description covers the mutation side effects (a source document is created in the project) and the failure mode (license refusal). Only the repeat-call/idempotency question is left open for a write tool.

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 coverage is 50%: item_id is documented in the schema (including the arxiv/ia/doaj prefixes), but project_id has no description in either place. The description reinforces the open-access precondition on item_id but adds no format or destination semantics beyond the schema.

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 precise verb and object: 'Télécharge le texte intégral d'un résultat ... et l'importe dans le projet comme document source', plus the constraint that only legal open-access items are eligible. An agent can distinguish this from discovery tools like find_works_by_topic without opening the schema, though no sibling is named explicitly in the body.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

'À faire sur demande de l'utilisateur' gives an explicit trigger condition for invoking it, and 'refusé pour les ouvrages protégés' states the main exclusion. It stops short of naming an alternative tool or describing what to do when the license check fails.

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

Deploy Server