Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Academic Writer MCP

Academic Writer MCP

by academic-writer-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Métadonnées d'un document

get_document_metadata
Read-only

Retrieve an imported document's metadata and verify the integrity of its protected copy to confirm the file is valid and unchanged.

Instructions

Renvoie les métadonnées d'un document importé et vérifie l'intégrité de sa copie protégée.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_document_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_idYesIdentifiant du document.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
documentYes
integrity_okYesLa copie protégée correspond toujours à son empreinte SHA-256.
original_protectedYesLa copie de l'original est en lecture seule.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuine behavioural detail beyond that: the call also verifies the integrity of the protected copy, meaning it is not a pure metadata lookup. It stops short of saying what happens when the integrity check fails or what such a side effect costs.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the primary function leads and the integrity check follows. Some clarity is lost in the unexplained term 'copie protégée', which the reader must guess at.

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 values need not be described, and the read-only annotation covers safety. The remaining gap is the undocumented integrity-verification behaviour (when it triggers, what a failure means) and any routing guidance against the many similarly named siblings — modest but real for a tool whose name overlaps several others.

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?

There is a single parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents 'document_id'. The description adds no format, provenance, or validation meaning beyond it, which is the expected baseline for a one-parameter tool with a complete 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?

The description gives a specific verb and resource ('Renvoie les métadonnées d'un document importé') plus a secondary effect ('vérifie l'intégrité de sa copie protégée'). It does not, however, distinguish this read from near-neighbours such as analyze_document_metadata or audit_document_integrity, which also sound metadata/integrity-oriented.

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 only hint of context is the qualifier 'importé', which implies the tool applies to already-imported documents. There is no statement of when to prefer this over analyze_document_metadata or audit_document_integrity, and no prerequisites or exclusions are given.

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