Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Academic Writer MCP

Academic Writer MCP

by academic-writer-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Moteur de rédaction

get_writing_engine
Read-onlyIdempotent

Selects and reports the writing engine—authorized cloud, local Ollama, or MCP assistant—including why it was chosen and each engine's status, so you know who drafts from the server-prepared dossier.

Instructions

Indique quel moteur rédigera (fournisseur cloud autorisé, modèle local Ollama ou assistant MCP), pourquoi, et l'état de chaque moteur. En mode « assistant », c'est l'assistant qui rédige à partir du dossier préparé par le serveur.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_writing_engine"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
engineNoMoteur souhaité ; vide = réglage de la configuration (auto par défaut).
project_idNoProjet (le consentement dépend du projet).

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
localYes
modelNo
engineYesassistant, ollama, anthropic ou openai
reasonYes
enginesYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds that the response explains the selection rationale and the state of each engine, plus that in 'assistant' mode the assistant composes from a server-prepared dossier. It does not cover consent requirements or failure modes beyond the schema's mention that consent depends on the project.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool reports, followed by the mode caveat. No filler, though the trailing sentence about assistant mode is somewhat tangential to the core 'which engine' purpose.

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

Completeness4/5

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 no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a two-optional-parameter read tool with full schema coverage, the description is complete enough; only explicit sibling routing is missing.

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%, and the schema already explains that a blank engine means the configured setting (auto by default) and that consent depends on project_id. The description mentions the 'assistant' mode but adds no format or interaction detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 states a concrete verb and resource: it tells which writing engine will be used (authorized cloud provider, local Ollama model, or MCP assistant), why, and the status of each engine. That is more specific than a tautology. It does not name a sibling such as get_ai_status to distinguish itself from, so it stops short of 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied rather than stated: an agent can infer you call this to learn which engine will handle writing and why. There is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative, though the note about 'assistant' mode does clarify one branch of behavior.

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