Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Academic Writer MCP

Academic Writer MCP

by academic-writer-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Provenance du document

inspect_document_provenance
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify a document's origin by inspecting C2PA Content Credentials, declared AI source types, and XMP metadata tools before relying on its content.

Instructions

Données de provenance : Content Credentials (C2PA), IPTC Digital Source Type (médias déclarés générés par IA), outils nommés dans les métadonnées XMP et les propriétés.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_document_provenance"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
document_idYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitsYes
findingsYes
document_idYes
declared_toolsNoOutils nommés dans les métadonnées.
declared_ai_mediaNoÉléments déclarés générés par IA (IPTC trainedAlgorithmicMedia…).
signature_verifiedNoSignature du manifeste vérifiée cryptographiquement.
content_credentialsYesManifeste C2PA (Content Credentials) détecté.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 usefully adds which families of provenance evidence are surfaced (C2PA, IPTC, XMP), but says nothing about behavior when credentials are absent, whether results are partial, or any limits/rate considerations.

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?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler, which is good, but it is a colon-led fragment lacking an action verb and front-loaded context. The parenthetical explanation of IPTC is helpful while other listed items get no gloss.

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 shapes need not be explained, and annotations cover the read-only nature. Still missing is what the agent should expect for documents with no provenance data, plus the description is in French while the tool name, title casing and schema are English, creating a localization mismatch that can slow interpretation.

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% for the single required parameter, document_id, so the description carries the burden of explaining it — and it says nothing about accepted ID formats, sources, or scope. The only implicit hint is that a document is the target, which is already obvious from the tool name.

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 enumerates the provenance sources returned (C2PA Content Credentials, IPTC Digital Source Type, XMP-named tools and properties), which tells the agent this is about authenticity/origin signals rather than general metadata. However, it is a noun-phrase fragment with no verb, so what the tool actually does (inspect, extract, report) is only inferable from the tool name. It also gives no signal distinguishing it from siblings like analyze_document_metadata or detect_ai_indicators.

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 statement of when to use this tool, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as analyze_document_metadata or detect_ai_indicators, which overlap in subject matter. The agent must guess the selection criteria 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

Other Tools