Academic Writer MCP

Dossier d'une section

get_section_brief

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve a section’s writing brief with rules, requirements, source excerpts, and terminology so you can draft accurately.

Instructions

Renvoie le dossier de rédaction d'une section (règles, exigences, extraits de sources, terminologie).

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>",
      "section_id": "<section_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_section_brief"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes
`section_id`	Yes
`instructions`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`brief`	Yes	Dossier de la section : contexte, exigences, extraits de sources, terminologie.
`language`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`section_id`	Yes
`target_words`	Yes
`trust_notice`	Yes
`section_title`	Yes
`system_prompt`	Yes	Règles de rédaction à respecter impérativement.
`source_excerpts`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered and the bar is lower. The description adds that the returned dossier bundles rules, requirements, source excerpts and terminology, which is useful context beyond the annotations, but it says nothing about size, pagination, or failure when a section does not exist.

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 verb, resource and payload contents in order; no filler. It is arguably too short for the tool's parameter surface, but nothing in it is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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, but the input side is incomplete: two of three parameters are undocumented in both schema and description, and the optional 'instructions' parameter is a genuine unexplained knob. For a tool with a nested-content payload and a 0%-coverage schema, this leaves real gaps.

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% across three parameters, so the description carries the full burden and largely fails it. 'D'une section' weakly implies section_id, but project_id is never explained and the optional 'instructions' parameter is entirely unaddressed — the agent has no idea what it changes about the returned brief.

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?

States a specific verb ('Renvoie') and resource ('le dossier de rédaction d'une section') and enumerates the payload (règles, exigences, extraits de sources, terminologie), which lets an agent tell it apart from siblings like get_section_revision or get_academic_outline. It stops short of naming an alternative explicitly, so it is clear but not sibling-routing.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternative is named. The agent must infer from the word 'rédaction' that this is a pre-writing fetch, and cannot tell from the description whether it supersedes get_section_revision or get_writing_engine.

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

Deploy Server