Academic Writer MCP

Générer la bibliographie

generate_bibliography

Formats bibliographies in GOST, APA 7, IEEE, Chicago, or Vancouver style from accepted section citations and flags unverified sources for review.

Instructions

Met en forme la bibliographie (ГОСТ Р 7.0.100 / 7.0.5, APA 7, IEEE, Chicago, Vancouver) à partir des citations des sections acceptées, avec la forme des appels dans le texte. Signale les sources non vérifiées.

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": "generate_bibliography"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`save`	No	Enregistrer comme révision proposée de la section bibliographie.
`style`	No		gost
`ordering`	No	Par défaut : ordre d'apparition (gost, ieee, vancouver), alphabétique (apa, chicago).
`project_id`	Yes
`include_uncited`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	Bibliographie mise en forme (Markdown).
`style`	Yes
`entries`	Yes
`ordering`	Yes
`warnings`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`revision_id`	No	Révision proposée de la section bibliographie.
`style_label`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare a mutating-but-non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world operation, and the description adds that unverified sources are flagged and only accepted sections' citations are used. However it never discloses that the tool can persist output as a proposed revision (the save parameter), which is the main behavioral trait an agent needs to know before calling a write tool.

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?

Two compact sentences with the core action and style list front-loaded; parenthetical style enumeration is dense but earns its place. Slightly cluttered but no filler.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value detail is not required, and the description covers input scope and formatting breadth. It is still incomplete for a tool with a save/write capability and three under-documented parameters, and it offers no routing against reference-related siblings.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description should compensate, but it only re-states the style list (already an enum) while adding the GOST 7.0.100/7.0.5 variants. It says nothing about ordering, include_uncited (undocumented in the schema too), or the save flag, leaving multiple parameters unexplained in both places.

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 (met en forme / génère) and resource (bibliographie), enumerates the citation styles, and states the input source ('citations des sections acceptées'). It does not name distinguishing siblings such as audit_references or export_references, so differentiation is left implicit.

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?

Usage is implied through the precondition 'sections acceptées' and the mention of in-text call formatting, which tells the agent the output covers both bibliography and in-text citations. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not guidance against sibling tools like audit_references or export_references.

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

Deploy Server