Academic Writer MCP

Vérifier les Content Credentials

verify_content_credentials

Read-onlyIdempotent

Detects Content Credentials (C2PA) manifests in a document and its media, noting that local signature verification is not performed and manifest presence alone does not prove authenticity.

Instructions

Recherche un manifeste Content Credentials (C2PA) dans le fichier et ses médias. La signature cryptographique n'est pas vérifiée localement : la présence d'un manifeste n'en garantit pas l'authenticité.

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": {
      "document_id": "<document_id>"
    },
    "name": "verify_content_credentials"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`document_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limits`	Yes
`findings`	Yes
`document_id`	Yes
`declared_tools`	No	Outils nommés dans les métadonnées.
`declared_ai_media`	No	Éléments déclarés générés par IA (IPTC trainedAlgorithmicMedia…).
`signature_verified`	No	Signature du manifeste vérifiée cryptographiquement.
`content_credentials`	Yes	Manifeste C2PA (Content Credentials) détecté.

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 readOnly, idempotent and closed-world, but the description adds a genuinely important caveat not in any structured field: the cryptographic signature is not verified locally, so a found manifest does not prove authenticity. That prevents an agent from overstating the result. It stops short of saying what a negative result means or whether verification can be done elsewhere.

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 sentences, both front-loaded and load-bearing: the first defines the search scope, the second delivers the critical limitation. Nothing is repeated from the title or the schema.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter read tool the description is nearly sufficient; only the meaning of document_id remains a real gap.

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?

There is a single required parameter, document_id, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the burden and largely does not meet it: the identifier is never explained. The phrase 'dans le fichier et ses médias' hints that the target is a document containing media, but the format or source of the id is never stated.

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: it searches for a Content Credentials (C2PA) manifest, scoped to the file and its embedded media. That is far more precise than the title alone, and it is clearly a read/inspection operation. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings such as verify_source_metadata or audit_document_integrity.

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: an agent can infer it applies when checking whether a document carries provenance credentials. There is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no named alternative for overlapping provenance checks among the sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server