Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Academic Writer MCP

Academic Writer MCP

by academic-writer-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Exporter les références

export_references

Export project references to BibTeX, RIS, or styled lists (GOST, APA, IEEE, Chicago, Vancouver) in the exports folder and return the generated file content.

Instructions

Exporte les sources du projet dans un fichier (BibTeX, RIS ou liste ГОСТ / APA / IEEE…) placé dans le dossier « exports » du projet, et renvoie son contenu.

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": "export_references"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keysNoClés à exporter ; toutes par défaut.
styleNogost
formatNobibtex / ris : pour Zotero, Word, LaTeX ; text : liste mise en forme dans un style.bibtex
project_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesFichier écrit dans le dossier « exports » du projet.
countYes
formatYes
contentYesContenu exporté (tronqué au-delà de 20 000 caractères).
project_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already indicate this is not read-only, is not destructive, and is not idempotent. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond the annotations by stating that the export is written as a file in the project's 'exports' folder and that the file content is returned. It does not explain overwrite behavior if the file already exists, which is a minor gap given the non-idempotent annotation.

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 description is a single front-loaded sentence that communicates the main action, output formats, file location, and return content without obvious filler. The parenthetical format/style list is slightly dense, but the overall structure is efficient and appropriate for the tool.

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?

The tool has four parameters, 50% schema description coverage, an output schema, and clear annotations. The description covers the core file-writing behavior and return content, but it omits relevant details such as how existing files are handled, how the 'keys' parameter affects selection, and whether the exports folder must already exist. It is adequate but not fully complete.

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 50%, so the description must partially compensate. It adds meaning by associating export formats with BibTeX, RIS, or formatted lists in styles such as GOST, APA, and IEEE, but it does not explain the 'keys' filtering parameter or the full style enum (Chicago, Vancouver). The schema already documents 'keys' and 'format', so the description's contribution is helpful but incomplete.

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: it exports the project's sources into a file in the project's 'exports' folder and returns the content. It is clear what the tool does and which formats are produced, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as export_document or generate_bibliography.

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?

The description implies the tool is used to export references, but it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no comparison to alternative sibling tools. The agent must infer the appropriate context from the tool name and parameters alone.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools