Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
humanpen-mcp

humanpen-mcp

Official
by humanpen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Convert citation format

fix_citations

Rewrite a .docx’s in-text citations and reference list into a chosen style, leaving body text unchanged, and save the result beside the source.

Instructions

Rewrite a .docx's in-text citations and reference list into one target style, leaving the body text alone. Saves the result next to the source and returns its path. COSTS CREDITS at 5 per 1,000 words processed (10 minimum) - say so and get agreement first.

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_path": "<document_path>",
      "style": "<style>"
    },
    "name": "fix_citations"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
styleYesTarget style: apa7, mla9, harvard, chicago_author_date, chicago_notes, ieee, vancouver, gbt7714, gbt7714_author_year, ama, acs, or oscola
output_pathNoWhere to write the result; defaults to beside the source
instructionsNoExtra requirements for this job
wait_secondsNoHow long to wait before returning a job id (default 55)
document_pathYesAbsolute path to the .docx

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well past the annotations: it discloses that only citations and the reference list are touched, that a new file is written beside the source, that the path is returned, and a concrete credit price with a 10-credit floor. The agreement-before-charging instruction is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations cannot carry.

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?

Three sentences, each carrying distinct information: what changes, what is produced, and what it costs. The cost warning is capitalized and front-loaded enough to catch the eye before invocation.

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?

It covers scope, output location and pricing, and the missing output schema is offset by the stated return value. The gap is the async surface: wait_seconds and a job id are never mentioned, so an agent is not told that it may need to poll via check_job.

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 100%, so style, output_path, instructions and wait_seconds are already documented in the schema and the description correctly does not repeat them. It adds only the notion of a single 'target style' and the beside-source default, both of which the schema already states, so this is baseline territory.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Rewrite a .docx's in-text citations and reference list') plus a precise scope constraint ('leaving the body text alone'). That scope line alone distinguishes it from any formatting-adjacent sibling and tells an agent exactly what changes and what does not.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit precondition for invocation ('say so and get agreement first') tied to the credit cost, which is real usage guidance rather than none. It stops short of naming when-not-to-use-it or pointing at siblings like humanize_document, but the domain is different enough that little inference is required.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools