Academic Writer MCP

Gérer une exigence

manage_requirement

Add, confirm, reject, or edit project requirements to keep academic writing tasks aligned with user decisions and specifications.

Instructions

Ajoute, confirme, rejette ou corrige une exigence, selon la décision de l'utilisateur.

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>",
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "manage_requirement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No
`text`	No
`value`	No
`action`	Yes	add : nouvelle exigence (confirmée) ; confirm / reject / edit : exigence existante.
`project_id`	Yes
`requirement_id`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`kind`	Yes
`page`	No
`text`	Yes
`value`	No
`number`	No	Numéro dans les consignes d'origine.
`origin`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`position`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`group_label`	No	Intertitre sous lequel l'exigence apparaît.
`source_filename`	No
`source_document_id`	No

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether reject deletes or flags, whether add requires a kind/text, or what happens if requirement_id is missing on confirm/reject/edit.

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 filler, listing the operations before the conditional clause. Its brevity is efficient, though it verges on under-specification rather than tight completeness.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a multi-mode mutation tool with conditional parameter requirements (requirement_id presumably needed for confirm/reject/edit, text/kind for add/edit), and the description provides none of that mapping. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the input-side guidance for a 6-parameter tool is largely absent.

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?

With only 17% schema description coverage across 6 parameters, the description needs to carry meaning, but it only restates the action verbs already enumerated in the schema. kind, text, value, project_id and requirement_id — including their per-action relevance — are left entirely unexplained.

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 verb set (add, confirm, reject, correct) and a clear resource (a requirement), which directly maps onto the four action enum values. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling extract_requirements, so it falls 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

"selon la décision de l'utilisateur" implies the tool is driven by an explicit user decision, but it never states when to prefer confirm vs edit, when reject applies, or what the prerequisite state of an existing requirement is. Usage is only implied, not spelled out.

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

Deploy Server