Academic Writer MCP

Modifier le plan

edit_academic_outline

Add, remove, rename, move, or configure sections in an academic outline; any change resets it to draft for revalidation and blocks deletion of written sections.

Instructions

Ajoute, supprime, renomme, déplace ou règle des sections. Un plan modifié repasse à l'état « draft » et doit être revalidé. Une section déjà rédigée ne peut pas être supprimée.

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": {
      "outline_id": "<outline_id>",
      "operations": "<operations>"
    },
    "name": "edit_academic_outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`operations`	Yes	Opérations appliquées dans l'ordre.
`outline_id`	Yes

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

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnly=false and destructive=false; the description adds the side effect an agent most needs — the outline silently downgrades to « draft » and requires revalidation. It also flags the one forbidden removal case (already-written sections). The 'supprime' operation against destructiveHint=false is not a true contradiction since edits are non-destructive and the outline remains recoverable as a draft, but the description could have clarified that removed sections are recoverable.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Three short sentences, zero filler, capabilities stated first and the two behavioral constraints immediately after. Nothing is repeated from the schema or annotations.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the mutation semantics and key constraint. The remaining gap is that it never explains the level (1–4) hierarchy or the op-to-field relationships in the nested OutlineOperation, which an agent must infer from the schema alone.

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%: 'section_id', 'after_section_id' and 'operations' ('Opérations appliquées dans l'ordre') are already documented in the schema. The description's operation list adds a little meaning by naming the five edit kinds in prose, but it says nothing about level, title, guidance, target_words or requirement_ids, nor which fields each op requires.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific verb set tied to a concrete resource: adding, removing, renaming, moving or setting sections of an outline. The enumerated operations map directly to the 'op' enum values, so an agent can tell this is the mutation tool for outline structure, distinct from create/get/validate siblings.

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?

It supplies real operating context: an edited outline reverts to « draft » and must be revalidated, and a section already written cannot be deleted. That gives clear conditions and one hard exclusion. It stops short of naming the validation sibling explicitly or stating when to prefer this over a whole-outline recreation.

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

Deploy Server