Academic Writer MCP

Valider le plan

validate_outline

Verifies that an outline covers all required sections and requirements, and approves it when explicitly requested. Writing is only allowed after outline approval.

Instructions

Vérifie que le plan couvre toutes les exigences et les sections attendues ; l'approuve si l'utilisateur le demande. La rédaction n'est possible qu'avec un plan approuvé.

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": {
      "outline_id": "<outline_id>"
    },
    "name": "validate_outline"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`force`	No	Approuver malgré des exigences non couvertes (sur demande explicite de l'utilisateur).
`approve`	No	true UNIQUEMENT si l'utilisateur a explicitement approuvé le plan.
`outline_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`issues`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`outline`	Yes
`approved`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the bar is lower; the description still adds real value by disclosing that this tool mutates state (approval), that approval is user-conditional, and that unapproved outlines block drafting. It stops short of saying what happens when coverage fails or whether approval can be revoked.

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 with no filler; the validation scope comes first and the approval/gating condition follows, so the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not explain return values, and the workflow gating it does explain is the key fact for calling this correctly. The remaining gap is failure behavior and the relation to the outline creation/editing siblings.

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%, and the schema already explains 'force' and 'approve' in detail; the description contributes nothing about any parameter. The one undocumented parameter, outline_id, is left unexplained in both places, so the description neither compensates for nor extends the structured data.

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 names a specific verb and resource in 'Vérifie que le plan couvre toutes les exigences et les sections attendues' and adds the approval action. It implies a distinct role versus creation/editing siblings, though it never names an alternative tool outright.

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?

It gives one conditional usage rule ('l'approuve si l'utilisateur le demande') and a downstream prerequisite ('La rédaction n'est possible qu'avec un plan approuvé'), which is genuinely useful context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance and no routing to related tools such as edit_academic_outline or get_academic_outline.

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

Deploy Server