Academic Writer MCP

Serveur LanguageTool local

manage_languagetool

Idempotent

Check, start, or stop the local LanguageTool server to enable private grammar checking and prevent document text from being sent externally.

Instructions

État, démarrage ou arrêt du serveur LanguageTool LOCAL (aucun texte n'est envoyé à l'extérieur).

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": "manage_languagetool"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`action`	No		status

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`url`	Yes
`java`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`running`	Yes
`installation`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, non-destructive, idempotent and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new context beyond them: the server is local and no text leaves the machine, which matters for privacy-sensitive correction workflows. It omits operational details such as whether start blocks, how long startup takes, or what stop does to in-flight checks.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence naming the resource first and the actions second, with the privacy guarantee in a compact parenthetical. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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 described, and annotations carry the safety profile. Still missing for a server-lifecycle tool is any statement of prerequisite ordering with check_language and of what 'start' actually entails, which leaves the agent guessing about sequencing.

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%, so the description must compensate. It does map one-to-one onto the enum values (état=status, démarrage=start, arrêt=stop), which confirms intent, but adds no detail on the default (status) or on the effect of each action beyond its name.

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 names a specific resource (the LOCAL LanguageTool server) and the three concrete operations (status, start, stop), so an agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not, however, relate itself to siblings such as check_language, which likely depends on this server.

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 call this versus check_language, nor on sequencing (e.g. start the server before checking text). The only hint is the implicit lifecycle semantics of status/start/stop, which the agent must infer.

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

Deploy Server