Academic Writer MCP

Compléter une source

update_source

Correct or complete a source record by editing its title, year, DOI, authors, or pages; changes are revalidated locally to keep bibliographic data accurate.

Instructions

Complète ou corrige une fiche ; elle est revérifiée localement.

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": {
      "source_id": "<source_id>",
      "changes": "<changes>"
    },
    "name": "update_source"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`changes`	Yes	Champs à modifier (title, year, doi, authors=[{family, given}], pages…).
`source_id`	Yes
`source_type`	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

C2.9/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world mutation, so the description's added phrase 'elle est revérifiée localement' is the real value: it discloses a re-verification side effect triggered by the update. However, it says nothing about whether changes are merged or replace existing fields, what happens when verification fails, or whether the update can be rejected.

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 short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the semicolon cleanly separates the action from its side effect. It is efficient, though brevity borders on under-specification given the term 'fiche'.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Misleadingly high placement would be wrong; this is a 3. The tool is a mutation with a nested free-form 'changes' object, two undocumented parameters, and no statement of merge semantics or failure behavior. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the mutation semantics and parameter guidance are missing.

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 coverage is only 33%: only 'changes' is documented, and the description adds nothing about it or about the undocumented 'source_id' and 'source_type'. The nested 'changes' object with additionalProperties=true leaves the accepted field vocabulary ambiguous, and the description does not clarify it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The verb phrase 'Complète ou corrige une fiche' does signal a partial-update operation on an existing entity, but it calls the resource a 'fiche' rather than a source and gives no hint of how it differs from siblings such as register_source or confirm_source_verification. An agent can tell it is a mutation on an existing record, but the scope is only approximately clear.

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 guidance, no exclusion of alternatives (e.g. register_source for new entries, confirm_source_verification for verification decisions), and no prerequisites such as requiring an existing source_id. Usage is only inferred from the word 'complète'.

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

Deploy Server