Academic Writer MCP

Consulter une révision

get_section_revision

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve the text of a specific section revision and its validation checks to review edits and verify document consistency.

Instructions

Renvoie le texte d'une révision et ses contrôles.

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": {
      "revision_id": "<revision_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_section_revision"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`revision_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`note`	No
`text`	Yes
`model`	Yes
`checks`	Yes
`engine`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`version`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`decided_at`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`section_id`	Yes
`word_count`	Yes
`section_title`	Yes
`parent_revision_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not clarify what "contrôles" contains, whether the text is raw or rendered, or what happens for a missing/invalid revision_id.

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?

A single short sentence with no padding, which is structurally clean. The brevity is really under-specification rather than efficiency, since the most load-bearing term ("contrôles") is left undefined.

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 shape need not be explained, but the description should still say what category of content comes back and how the revision_id is obtained. It also reads in French while tool and sibling names are English, adding a small consistency cost for an agent matching intent to tool.

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?

Only one parameter exists and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for explaining revision_id — its expected format and provenance — but it says nothing about it. With a single required identifier the gap is small, but it is a real one and the tool cannot be called confidently without guessing an ID source.

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 names a specific verb and resource ("Renvoie le texte d'une révision"), so the core action is identifiable. However, "ses contrôles" is ambiguous — it could be comments, validation checks, or review annotations — and nothing distinguishes this from siblings like get_section_brief, inspect_revision_history, or review_revision.

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 call this versus inspect_revision_history or review_revision, both of which plausibly surface revision data. No prerequisites, no mention of where a revision_id comes from, and no statement about when this tool is not appropriate.

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

Deploy Server