Academic Writer MCP

Enregistrer une source

register_source

Add a bibliographic reference and validate its local metadata—required fields, ISBN, DOI, and year—to catch malformed citations before bibliography export.

Instructions

Enregistre une source bibliographique et la vérifie localement (champs obligatoires, ISBN, DOI, année). Statut honnête : « bien formée » ne signifie pas « vérifiée ». N'inventer aucun auteur, titre ou DOI.

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>",
      "source_type": "<source_type>"
    },
    "name": "register_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	No	Clé de citation (sinon générée : ivanov2020).
`data`	No	Métadonnées RÉELLES fournies par l'utilisateur ou lues dans un document ; ne jamais en inventer.
`project_id`	Yes
`document_id`	No	Document importé correspondant (pré-remplit la fiche si data est vide).
`source_type`	Yes	book, article, chapter, conference, thesis, standard, web, report, patent, other
`allow_duplicate`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`key`	Yes	Clé de citation stable, utilisée dans le texte : [@clé] ou [@clé, с. 15].
`data`	Yes
`origin`	Yes
`project_id`	Yes
`document_id`	No
`source_type`	Yes
`verified_at`	No
`manual_links`	No	Liens de vérification à ouvrir par l'utilisateur dans son navigateur.
`status_label`	Yes
`citation_count`	No
`verification_status`	Yes
`verification_details`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the generic profile (writable, non-destructive, non-idempotent, closed-world). The description adds real behavioral substance: the validation is local and limited to required fields, ISBN, DOI and year, and it warns that 'bien formée' does not mean 'vérifiée'. The anti-fabrication instruction is valuable guardrail context beyond annotations, though nothing is said about duplicate handling despite an allow_duplicate parameter.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with what the tool does, then the validation scope, then the honesty caveat. No filler and no repetition of the title.

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 explained, and the validation scope is stated. However, for a write operation with 6 parameters, the description omits what happens when validation fails (reject vs. save with warnings) and how allow_duplicate or document_id pre-filling affect the outcome.

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 67%, so most parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces which fields get validated (ISBN, DOI, year) and stresses that data must be real rather than invented, which adds intent-level meaning. It says nothing about key, document_id, source_type or allow_duplicate semantics.

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 ('Enregistre une source bibliographique') and scopes the operation as a local validation of required fields, ISBN, DOI and year. That implicitly separates it from network-based verification siblings, but it never names those siblings, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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: the tool is for registering a new source, and the 'vérifie localement' wording hints that real verification happens elsewhere. There is no explicit 'use this when...' / 'do not use when...' statement and no reference to confirm_source_verification or verify_source_metadata by name.

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

Deploy Server