Academic Writer MCP

Lister les documents

list_documents

Read-only

Retrieve imported project documents and optionally filter them by role to locate sources, drafts, templates, data, or instructions for academic writing.

Instructions

Liste les documents importés dans un projet.

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": "list_documents"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No	Filtrer par rôle (facultatif).
`project_id`	Yes	Identifiant du projet.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`count`	Yes
`documents`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of ordering, limits, pagination, whether all documents are returned, or what happens with large projects.

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 no wasted wording, appropriate in size for a simple two-parameter read tool. It is terse to the point of under-specification, but nothing is redundant.

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 values need not be explained, and the tool is a simple read. However, for a listing tool the description omits result-shaping behavior such as ordering, completeness, or filtering semantics, and gives no routing against the search sibling.

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%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema, and this sets the baseline at 3. The phrase "dans un projet" echoes the required project_id but the description never mentions the optional role filter, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema.

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 uses a specific verb and resource, "Liste les documents", and scopes it to documents imported in a project, so the agent immediately knows what the tool returns. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling search_in_documents, which could plausibly be confused with it.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no conditions selecting it over search_in_documents, and no exclusions. The only implicit signal is that a project_id is required, which the schema already conveys.

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

Deploy Server