Academic Writer MCP

Consulter un projet

get_project

Read-only

Retrieves project information using a 32-character hexadecimal project ID, so you can inspect project details before analysis or editing.

Instructions

Renvoie les informations d'un projet.

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_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	Identifiant du projet (32 caractères hexadécimaux).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`domain_id`	No	Profil disciplinaire confirmé par l'utilisateur.
`convention`	No	Convention de présentation : ru, fr ou intl.
`created_at`	Yes
`discipline`	No
`updated_at`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`document_type`	Yes
`domain_confirmed_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered externally. The description adds nothing beyond the purpose — no note on behavior for unknown/invalid IDs, no scope of returned data, no access requirements — so it contributes almost no behavioral context of its own.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

One short, front-loaded sentence with zero wasted words, which is good structurally. But the brevity here reflects under-specification rather than discipline — the sentence is too thin to earn much beyond the tool name.

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 explained, and the lone parameter is fully covered by the schema. For a simple read-only tool the definition is adequate but stops at the minimum, omitting any hint of scope or failure behavior.

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 100%: the single parameter project_id is fully documented as a 32-character hexadecimal identifier in the schema itself. The description adds no further meaning, so the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The description states a verb ('Renvoie') and a resource ('un projet'), so the basic operation is identifiable. However, 'les informations' is unspecified — it doesn't say which project data is returned or how this differs from sibling reads such as get_document_metadata. It is minimally viable rather than sharply 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 guidance on when to use this tool, no preconditions (e.g., the project must exist / caller must have access), and no mention of alternatives such as update_project or archive_project. The agent must infer all usage context from the name alone.

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

Deploy Server