Academic Writer MCP

Traduire une section

translate_academic_section

Translates academic sections across French, Russian, and English using a disciplinary glossary, verifies numbers and key terms, and returns a proposed revision without replacing the validated source.

Instructions

Traduit une section (fr/ru/en) avec le glossaire du profil disciplinaire ; vérifie que les chiffres sont identiques et que les termes clés sont rendus par leur équivalent. Révision PROPOSÉE dans la langue cible, qui ne remplace pas la version validée dans la langue du projet.

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>",
      "section_id": "<section_id>",
      "target_language": "<target_language>"
    },
    "name": "translate_academic_section"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`engine`	No
`project_id`	Yes
`section_id`	Yes
`revision_id`	No
`target_language`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`brief`	No
`engine`	Yes
`glossary`	Yes
`revision`	No
`next_step`	Yes
`engine_reason`	Yes
`source_language`	Yes
`target_language`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only flag non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent, non-destructive; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that translation is glossary-driven, that numbers must remain identical and key terms mapped to their equivalents, and that output is a proposed revision that does not overwrite the validated version. That last point is exactly the kind of side-effect context an agent needs for a write-class tool; only engine/runtime behavior is left unstated.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the core operation stated first and the non-overwrite caveat front-loaded. The semicolon-joined clause is dense but still readable; no sentence is wasted.

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?

Because an output schema exists, return values need not be described, and the mutation semantics are covered well. However, with five parameters at 0% schema coverage and no guidance on engine selection or how revision_id interacts with the proposed-revision behavior, the definition leaves real gaps for an agent to guess at.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 5 parameters, so the description carries the full burden, yet it only echoes the fr/ru/en target-language options already expressed as an enum. project_id, section_id, revision_id (whether translating an existing revision) and especially engine (auto/assistant/ollama/anthropic/openai) receive no explanation at all.

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?

"Traduit une section (fr/ru/en)" gives a specific verb and resource plus the language scope, and the mention of the disciplinary-profile glossary makes the behavior distinguishable from rewrite_academic_section or correct_academic_section. It stops short of naming a sibling to steer away from, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a draft or validated version must already exist) are stated. The only workflow hint is implicit in "Révision PROPOSÉE... ne remplace pas la version validée", which describes the outcome rather than telling the agent when to pick this tool over its rewrite/correct siblings.

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

Deploy Server