Academic Writer MCP

ping

Read-only

Checks whether the Academic Writer server is reachable and returns its version, mode, and timestamp for connection verification.

Instructions

Vérifie que le serveur Academic Writer répond. Renvoie version, mode et horodatage.

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": "ping"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`message`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`echo`	No	Message renvoyé tel quel.
`mode`	Yes	Mode réseau : 'local' (aucun envoi externe) ou 'connected'.
`python`	Yes	Version de Python utilisée par le serveur.
`server`	Yes	Nom du serveur.
`status`	Yes	Toujours 'ok' si le serveur répond.
`version`	Yes	Version d'Academic Writer.
`timestamp_utc`	Yes	Horodatage UTC ISO 8601 de la réponse.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

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 adds that the call returns version, mode and timestamp, which is mild extra context, but it says nothing about failure behavior (timeout, unreachable server) or whether the call has side effects on server state.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the return payload. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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?

For a trivial one-parameter health check with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description covers the essentials. The only real omission is the meaning of the optional 'message' argument, which no field documents.

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?

There is one optional parameter, 'message', with 0% schema description coverage, and the description never mentions it, so its purpose (echo/diagnostic payload?) is undocumented in both places. The only semantic added is the return content, which the output schema already covers.

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: verifying that the Academic Writer server responds, i.e. a health/connectivity check. That is clearly distinct from the analysis and editing siblings, though the distinction is by implication rather than by naming any alternative.

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: an agent can infer this is a pre-flight connectivity/version check, but the description never says when to call it (e.g. before a long workflow, on timeout errors) or when it is unnecessary. No alternatives are mentioned.

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

Deploy Server