Academic Writer MCP

Vérifier une source

verify_source_metadata

Idempotent

Checks a source's metadata locally and online via Crossref, Open Library, or title search, then flags divergent or missing references.

Instructions

Vérifie une source : localement (complétude, identifiants) puis en ligne si autorisé (DOI via Crossref, ISBN via Open Library, recherche par titre). Signale les références divergentes ou introuvables.

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>"
    },
    "name": "verify_source_metadata"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`online`	No	Interroger Crossref / Open Library (mode connecté uniquement ; seules des métadonnées sont envoyées).
`source_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`source`	Yes
`candidates`	No	Correspondances possibles trouvées en ligne (à confirmer).
`online_notice`	No
`online_checked`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 9, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description usefully discloses the local-then-online sequence, the external services consulted, and the output behavior ('signale les références divergentes ou introuvables'). However, annotations declare readOnlyHint=false while the description reads as a pure inspection/reporting operation — it never explains what state, if any, gets written or persisted, nor any rate limits or failure modes when external services are unreachable.

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 well-structured sentence with parenthetical detail, front-loaded on the verb and resource, and no filler. The phrase 'seules des métadonnées sont envoyées' lives in the schema rather than here, keeping the description tight.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the external-service behavior is covered. What remains missing is essential for correct invocation: the format of the required source_id and the nature of the non-read-only side effect implied by readOnlyHint=false.

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?

With schema coverage at 50%, only the 'online' parameter carries documentation, and the description merely restates that gating ('si autorisé') without adding meaning. Critically, the required 'source_id' is undocumented in both schema and description — the agent cannot tell whether it expects an internal UUID, a DOI, or an ISBN, which directly affects call correctness.

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 ('Vérifie une source') and details the two-stage procedure: local checks (completeness, identifiers) then online enrichment via Crossref/Open Library by DOI, ISBN, or title. This is far more specific than a tautology, though it never names a sibling such as confirm_source_verification or audit_references to delineate boundaries.

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 implied through the conditional 'puis en ligne si autorisé', which tells the agent the online phase is gated, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this tool over confirm_source_verification, register_source, or audit_references. The agent must infer routing from names alone.

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

Deploy Server