Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Academic Writer MCP

Academic Writer MCP

by academic-writer-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

Lister les projets

list_projects
Read-only

Retrieve writing projects ordered from most recently modified to oldest, with an option to include archived projects.

Instructions

Liste les projets, du plus récemment modifié au plus ancien.

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_projects"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
include_archivedNoInclure les projets archivés.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countYes
projectsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds the sort order (most recently modified to oldest), but says nothing about pagination, result limits, or whether archived items appear by default.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the sort order appended as the only extra detail. There is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given an output schema exists and annotations cover the safety profile, the description only needs to convey scope and ordering, which it does. The only real gap is the absence of any hint about result volume or how archived items default, which the schema partially covers.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter include_archived is fully documented in the schema, so the description needs to carry no weight here. It adds no extra meaning about how archived projects affect ordering or results, which is the baseline expectation.

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 specific verb and resource ('Liste les projets') and adds the ordering semantics (most recently modified first), so the agent knows exactly what it returns. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like list_documents or list_backups, leaving that differentiation to the names alone.

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 only implied by the tool name and the listing semantics; there is no explicit statement of when to call this versus alternatives, nor any exclusion such as 'use list_documents for documents'. For a simple read-only lister this is tolerable but thin.

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