Skip to main content
Glama

get_outline_templates

Retrieve structured templates for academic literature reviews to organize research papers effectively.

Instructions

获取可用的综述大纲模板

返回所有支持的文献综述结构模板。

Returns: 模板列表,每个包含名称和章节结构

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function decorated with @mcp.tool() that implements the get_outline_templates tool. It returns a dictionary of available outline templates based on the OUTLINE_TEMPLATES constant.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_outline_templates() -> dict[str, Any]:
        """获取可用的综述大纲模板
        
        返回所有支持的文献综述结构模板。
        
        Returns:
            模板列表,每个包含名称和章节结构
        """
        return {
            "templates": [
                {
                    "id": key,
                    "name": template["name"],
                    "sections": [
                        {
                            "id": s["id"],
                            "title": s["title"],
                            "description": s["description"],
                        }
                        for s in template["sections"]
                    ],
                }
                for key, template in OUTLINE_TEMPLATES.items()
            ]
        }
  • The OUTLINE_TEMPLATES dictionary defines the available outline templates returned by the get_outline_templates tool.
    # 经济金融领域文献综述的标准结构
    OUTLINE_TEMPLATES = {
        "econ_finance_canonical": {
            "name": "经济金融学经典结构",
            "sections": [
                {
                    "id": "research_question",
                    "title": "研究问题与理论框架",
                    "description": "核心研究问题、理论基础和主要假设",
                    "keywords": ["theory", "hypothesis", "framework", "model", "prediction"],
                },
                {
                    "id": "methodology",
                    "title": "方法与识别策略",
                    "description": "实证方法、因果识别、计量模型",
                    "keywords": ["method", "identification", "strategy", "estimation", "regression", "instrumental", "difference-in-differences", "RDD"],
                },
                {
                    "id": "data",
                    "title": "数据与变量度量",
                    "description": "数据来源、样本选择、关键变量定义",
                    "keywords": ["data", "sample", "variable", "measure", "proxy", "definition"],
                },
                {
                    "id": "findings",
                    "title": "主要发现",
                    "description": "核心结论、稳健性检验、异质性分析",
                    "keywords": ["result", "finding", "evidence", "show", "demonstrate", "coefficient", "significant"],
                },
                {
                    "id": "debates",
                    "title": "争议与不一致发现",
                    "description": "文献中的分歧、methodological debates",
                    "keywords": ["debate", "controversy", "inconsistent", "contrast", "however", "limitation"],
                },
                {
                    "id": "gaps",
                    "title": "研究空白与未来方向",
                    "description": "尚未解决的问题、潜在研究机会",
                    "keywords": ["gap", "future", "direction", "unexplored", "opportunity", "need"],
                },
            ],
        },
        "general": {
            "name": "通用文献综述结构",
            "sections": [
                {
                    "id": "background",
                    "title": "背景与动机",
                    "description": "研究领域概述和重要性",
                    "keywords": ["background", "motivation", "importance", "context"],
                },
                {
                    "id": "theory",
                    "title": "理论基础",
                    "description": "相关理论和概念框架",
                    "keywords": ["theory", "framework", "concept", "model"],
                },
                {
                    "id": "methods",
                    "title": "研究方法",
                    "description": "主要研究方法和技术路线",
                    "keywords": ["method", "approach", "technique", "design"],
                },
                {
                    "id": "findings",
                    "title": "主要发现",
                    "description": "关键研究结论和证据",
                    "keywords": ["result", "finding", "evidence", "conclusion"],
                },
                {
                    "id": "future",
                    "title": "未来研究方向",
                    "description": "研究空白和潜在机会",
                    "keywords": ["future", "direction", "gap", "opportunity"],
                },
            ],
        },
    }
  • Invocation of register_writing_tools(mcp) which registers all writing tools, including get_outline_templates.
    register_writing_tools(mcp)
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns a list of templates with names and chapter structures, which is helpful. However, it doesn't cover important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, potential rate limits, authentication requirements, or error conditions. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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?

The description is concise and front-loaded, starting with the main purpose in the first sentence. It uses three sentences total, with no wasted words, efficiently covering what the tool does and what it returns. However, the mix of Chinese and English might slightly reduce clarity in some contexts, but it remains structurally sound.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (0 parameters, no annotations, but with an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It explains the purpose and return value, and since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to detail return values further. However, it could improve by adding usage context or behavioral details, but for a straightforward retrieval tool, it's adequate.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't add any parameter-related information. According to the rules, with 0 parameters, the baseline score is 4, as there's no need for parameter semantics beyond what's already covered.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: '获取可用的综述大纲模板' (Get available outline templates) and '返回所有支持的文献综述结构模板' (Returns all supported literature review structure templates). It specifies the verb (get/return) and resource (outline templates/literature review structure templates). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'compose_full_template_v1' or 'generate_review_outline_data_v1', which appear related but have different functions.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools such as 'compose_full_template_v1' or 'generate_review_outline_data_v1', which might be used for creating or generating templates rather than retrieving them. Without this, the agent lacks direction on appropriate use cases.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/h-lu/paperlib-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server