Generate well-structured essays on any topic with customizable word count, academic level, tone, and citations. Ideal for creating organized academic writing for assignments or research.
Generate comprehensive, well-structured essays on any topic with customizable academic levels (~4 credits)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tone | No | ||
| topic | Yes | ||
| outline | No | ||
| provider | No | ||
| citations | No | ||
| essayType | No | ||
| wordCount | Yes | ||
| academicLevel | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It reveals nothing about generation latency, cost, whether output is plain text or structured, whether citations are real or fabricated, or what the parenthetical '(~4 credits)' means for consumption — a notable gap for an unannotated generation tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is slightly under-specified rather than verbose, and the trailing '(~4 credits)' fragment is cryptic but does not bloat the text.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With 8 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should explain the configurable dimensions and expected output. It covers roughly two of eight parameters and leaves the agent guessing about the rest.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely fails. It alludes to 'topic' and 'academic levels' (mapping to academicLevel), but tone, outline, provider, citations, essayType, and wordCount remain completely undocumented in both the schema and the description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource ('Generate ... essays') and adds a scope qualifier ('any topic', 'customizable academic levels'). It is clear what the tool produces, but it does not distinguish itself from close siblings such as aaddyy_article_generator or aaddyy_research_blog_writer beyond the word 'essay'.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no statement of when to choose this tool over the many sibling writers, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The agent must infer usage 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.