Academic Writer MCP

Lister les profils disciplinaires

list_domain_profiles

Read-onlyIdempotent

Lists available built-in and custom domain profiles with their risk levels, helping users select a suitable profile for academic writing or analysis.

Instructions

Liste les profils disponibles (intégrés et personnalisés), avec leur niveau de risque.

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": "list_domain_profiles"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`language`	No		fr

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	Yes
`domains`	Yes
`load_errors`	Yes	Profils écartés car invalides.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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 adds that both built-in and custom profiles are included and that each carries a risk level, which is useful context beyond annotations, though the output schema also documents the return shape.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words, and the scope detail (built-in vs custom, risk level) is packed in efficiently. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation.

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?

With an output schema and full annotations, the description needn't explain return values, and it covers the essential scope. It is still missing any mention of the language parameter or when a reload is needed, which leaves small gaps for an agent deciding how to call it.

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 0% for the single optional 'language' parameter, and the description never mentions it, so it does not compensate. However, the parameter is a simple three-value enum with a default ('fr'), making its meaning largely self-evident from the schema, which keeps this at the minimum-viable level.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Liste les profils') and adds scope the name alone doesn't convey: built-in and custom profiles, returned with their risk level. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_domain_profile or identify_domain, so it stops short of a 5.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this versus get_domain_profile (single profile lookup), reload_domain_profiles (refresh), or identify_domain. Usage is only implied by the word 'Liste'; no exclusions or alternatives are named.

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

Deploy Server