Academic Writer MCP

Identifier le domaine

identify_domain

Read-onlyIdempotent

Suggests a project’s discipline from its documents’ vocabulary, returning ranked candidates, detected terms, and a confidence score so users can confirm the proposed domain before setting it.

Instructions

Propose la discipline du projet à partir du vocabulaire de ses documents.

    Renvoie des candidats classés, les termes trouvés et un niveau de confiance.
    C'est une suggestion : présenter le résultat à l'utilisateur et lui demander de
    confirmer avant d'appeler set_project_domain.

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": "identify_domain"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project_id`	Yes	Identifiant du projet.
`document_id`	No	Limiter l'analyse à un document (facultatif).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`candidates`	Yes
`confidence`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`explanation`	Yes
`risk_notices`	No
`analyzed_words`	Yes
`analyzed_documents`	Yes
`suggested_domain_id`	Yes
`requires_confirmation`	No	Toujours vrai : l'utilisateur confirme avec set_project_domain.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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 covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond that: the return contains ranked candidates, matched terms and a confidence level, and the output is non-authoritative and requires user confirmation before it is persisted.

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 the core action, then return shape, then the safety/workflow caveat — each sentence earns its place. Only minor drag from the stray indentation and line breaks carried over from the source string.

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

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only inference tool with two well-documented parameters and an output schema, nothing essential is missing: the agent knows the input, the nature of the output, and the required confirmation step before mutation. Edge cases such as no-match or low confidence are left to the output schema's confidence field.

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%, with project_id and the optional document_id both documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The phrase 'à partir du vocabulaire de ses documents' hints at the document scope but adds no new meaning about how document_id narrows the analysis.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource: it proposes a project's discipline inferred from the vocabulary of its documents. It is immediately distinguishable from the sibling set_project_domain, which it names, and from profile-management siblings by stating the inference source.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly frames the call as advisory ('C'est une suggestion') and prescribes a workflow: show the result to the user, get confirmation, then call set_project_domain. What is missing is a negative condition — e.g. whether to skip this when a domain profile is already set or when only one document is relevant.

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

Deploy Server