Skip to main content
Glama

Audit a draft against the reporting checklist

lnm_audit_manuscript
Read-onlyIdempotent

Audit a manuscript draft for missing reporting elements and phrasings that overstate the design's support, returning severity-graded findings with problems and suggested fixes.

Instructions

Search a draft for the reporting elements this design requires, and for phrasings that overstate what the design supports.

Findings come in three grades: blocking (a reviewer will reject or major-revise on it), address before submission, and consider. Each finding names the section, the problem, and the fix. Overstatement findings quote the text that triggered them.

This is a text search, not a review. It tells you whether the manuscript says an analysis was done; it cannot tell you whether the analysis was done well. A clean audit is a floor, not a verdict.

Args:

  • manuscript: the full text, or at minimum one complete section (120+ words)

  • design: optional design id; supplying it adds that design's specific checks

Returns: counts, then findings grouped by severity.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
designNoDesign id, to add design-specific checks.
manuscriptYesManuscript text to audit. Full text preferred; a complete section is the minimum.
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' to read, 'json' for machine processing.markdown
Install Server

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds substantial context beyond that by explaining severity grades, finding contents, quoted overstatement triggers, and the limitation that a clean audit is not a quality endorsement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 well structured and front-loaded, but the Args section largely duplicates the input schema. Each paragraph still earns its place: grades, limitations, and return shape are distinct pieces of useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return value: counts followed by findings grouped by severity, with each finding containing section, problem, and fix. It also specifies input minimums and the optional design parameter, so an agent has enough context to call the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description mostly restates the schema, with minor additions like the 120+ word minimum and the effect of supplying a design id, but it does not materially deepen parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource: it searches a draft for required reporting elements and for overstating phrasings. It also distinguishes itself from a review, making its scope clear relative to sibling checklist/guidance tools.

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?

The description gives clear context for when to use the tool: supply a manuscript or complete section, optionally a design id, and expect a text search rather than a quality verdict. It explicitly states what the tool cannot do, but it does not name sibling alternatives or provide direct when-not-to-use comparisons.

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

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/nielspac177/lnm-writer'

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