Academic Writer MCP

Avancement de la rédaction

get_draft_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the status of each draft section—planned, written, or validated—along with accepted word counts and pending revisions for a project.

Instructions

État de chaque section du plan : planifiée, rédigée, validée ; mots acceptés ; révisions en attente.

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": "get_draft_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`progress`	Yes
`sections`	Yes
`outline_id`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`target_words`	Yes
`accepted_words`	Yes
`outline_status`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is settled without the description. The description adds genuine payload context beyond that — that each plan section is itemised with its state plus accepted word counts and pending revision counts. It does not say what happens for an unstarted or non-existent project, which is the remaining behavioral gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource first and the payload enumerated after; no filler or repetition. It is a noun-phrase fragment rather than a full sentence, which is efficient here but leaves the action implicit.

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 is a simple one-parameter read with an output schema, so return values need not be explained and the annotations carry the safety profile. The description therefore only needs to establish scope, and it omits the project scoping entirely. Adequate for the complexity, but one sentence short of complete.

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 0% and there is one required parameter, project_id, which the description never mentions — no hint that the status is scoped to a single project or what a valid identifier looks like. With zero coverage the description is expected to compensate and it does not. It only describes return content, not input meaning.

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 the resource precisely (l'état de chaque section du plan) and enumerates the payload's content: statut (planifiée/rédigée/validée), mots acceptés, révisions en attente. That is enough for an agent to distinguish it from write-side siblings like save_section_draft or from structural tools like get_academic_outline. It stops short of an explicit verb or a named sibling comparison, so it is clear but not maximally differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether to call this before or after save_section_draft, nor how it relates to get_section_revision for the 'révisions en attente' portion. The agent must infer the call context from the returned fields alone. No exclusions or alternatives are stated.

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

Deploy Server