Skip to main content
Glama

write_report

Read-only

Produces a detailed Markdown report on AI-writing signals: score, evidence with line/column, hidden characters, and citation mismatches. Runs fully offline for sharing or attachment.

Instructions

Produces the full analysis as a Markdown document a person can keep, forward to a writer, or take to an academic-integrity committee — the finished artefact rather than a summary to paraphrase. It contains the score, the signals that counted and the ones found at a rate people write at, the characters found in the file with their line and column, and the places where the document's citations disagree with its own bibliography. Checkable facts are named at the top and kept apart from the score, which is an opinion about prose. Every report prints how often this build is wrong, measured for the language actually analysed against texts published before generative models existed, and names the rules known to fire on human writing so the reader can weigh evidence that leans on one. Below the threshold that measurement supports, no verdict is given at all. Runs FULLY OFFLINE. The result contains material from the document, so treat it as you would the coursework itself: hand it to the person who asked, do not post it anywhere. Prefer this over paraphrasing the other tools' output when the user wants something to send, save, print or attach.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe document to analyse and describe.
titleNoTitle for the document. Defaults to a title in the report language.
languageNo"en", "es", or "auto" to detect. Defaults to auto.
documentNameNoName of the file or assignment, printed on the report. Optional.
interfaceLanguageNoReader-facing report language: "en" or "es". Independent from the analysed text. Defaults to English.
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses that the tool runs FULLY OFFLINE, that the output contains material from the document (privacy caution), and that it reports its own error rates and rules that may fire on human writing. It also explains the threshold-based verdict suppression.

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 longer than typical (7 sentences) but every sentence contributes meaningful detail about purpose, contents, limitations, and usage. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and uses clear structure, though it could be slightly tighter without losing value.

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?

The description comprehensively covers what the report includes (score, signals, character locations, citation discrepancies), reliability metrics, threshold rules, offline behavior, and privacy considerations. This is especially important because there is no output schema, and the description fully compensates for that.

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?

The input schema provides 100% coverage with clear descriptions for all 5 parameters. The tool description does not add significant meaning beyond what the schema already offers; it references report contents but doesn't elaborate on individual parameter behavior.

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 clearly states the tool produces a complete Markdown analysis document, distinguishing it from sibling tools that provide individual analyses. It identifies the resource (full analysis report) and the specific verb 'produces', and explicitly contrasts with paraphrasing other tools.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives explicit usage guidance: 'Prefer this over paraphrasing the other tools' output when the user wants something to send, save, print or attach.' It also mentions that no verdict is given below a reliability threshold, setting expectations for when output may be withheld.

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/peopleworks/SignsofAI'

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