Academic Writer MCP

Modifier un projet

update_project

Idempotent

Modify selected fields of an active academic project—such as name, language, discipline, description, or document type—while leaving omitted fields unchanged.

Instructions

Modifie les champs indiqués d'un projet actif (les champs omis restent inchangés).

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_project"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No
`language`	No
`discipline`	No
`project_id`	Yes	Identifiant du projet (32 caractères hexadécimaux).
`description`	No
`document_type`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes
`name`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`language`	Yes
`domain_id`	No	Profil disciplinaire confirmé par l'utilisateur.
`convention`	No	Convention de présentation : ru, fr ou intl.
`created_at`	Yes
`discipline`	No
`updated_at`	Yes
`description`	Yes
`document_type`	Yes
`domain_confirmed_at`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real context beyond them: the update is partial (omitted fields are preserved) and the target must be an active project, which is the key behavioral fact an agent needs.

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 or repetition. Its brevity is efficient, though it is arguably undersized for a six-parameter mutation tool, so it falls just short of ideal sizing.

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?

The presence of an output schema and rich annotations removes some burden, but with six parameters at 17% description coverage the definition never tells the agent what fields can be changed or what values are expected. For a partial-update mutation tool this leaves a material gap.

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 only 17% — only project_id is documented, with the 32-hex-character format. The description says 'les champs indiqués' without naming or explaining any of the five updatable fields (name, language, discipline, description, document_type), so it does not compensate for the low coverage.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Modifie les champs indiqués d'un projet') plus the scope of the operation (field-level update on an active project). It is clearly distinguishable from create_project or archive_project by the word 'modifie', though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

The parenthetical 'les champs omis restent inchangés' communicates patch-style usage and 'projet actif' hints that non-active projects are out of scope. However, it gives no routing guidance against overlapping siblings such as set_project_domain or set_project_ai_consent, nor any prerequisites or error conditions.

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

Deploy Server