circe-mcp

Check text against the Circe Editorial Standard

check_text

Read-onlyIdempotent

Checks text against the Circe Editorial Standard, returning each rule violation with location, severity, confidence, and a suggested fix.

Instructions

Check text against the Circe Editorial Standard (CES) v0.3. Returns each violation with its rule ID, severity, confidence, line and column, the matched text, a message, and a suggested fix. Overlapping violations are reported once, with the others listed under 'related'.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`text`	Yes	The text to check. Markdown is understood: code blocks, inline code, URLs, and front matter are skipped.
`rules`	No	Run exactly these rule IDs, such as ['CES-P-001', 'CES-C-008']. Includes optional rules when named.
`ignore`	No	Rule IDs to skip for this call. Use it for a justified exception, such as a factual contrast under CES-C-008.
`severity`	No	Lowest level to report. 'error' reports errors only; 'warning' adds warnings. Default: everything.
`checkCode`	No	Lint fenced code blocks and inline code too (CES-K-003). Default false.
`includeOptional`	No	Also run the optional rules (stylistic triples, resume cliches). Default false.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`counts`	Yes
`rulesRun`	Yes
`violations`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/closed-world, and the description adds real behavioral nuance: the CES version checked, the violation payload shape, and the dedup rule where overlapping violations collapse into one with 'related' entries. It does not cover rate limits or failure modes, but it exceeds the annotation baseline.

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?

Two tight sentences with the purpose front-loaded and zero filler. The second sentence partly restates what the output schema already exposes, which is the only slight redundancy.

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 a full output schema and complete parameter descriptions, the description only needs to frame the tool's role, which it does, plus the CES version and dedup semantics. The one meaningful gap is routing guidance relative to fix_text/explain_rule/list_rules.

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 description coverage is 100%, so every parameter including rules, ignore, severity, checkCode and includeOptional is already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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+resource (check text against the CES v0.3) and describes the diagnostic output, which implicitly distinguishes it from fix_text. However, it never names or contrasts with any sibling, so an agent must infer the boundary between checking, fixing, and measuring.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as fix_text for applying fixes or explain_rule for interpreting a rule ID. Usage must be inferred entirely from the tool name.

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

Deploy Server