Skip to main content
Glama

get_author_revision_response_prompt

Draft a professional response to an author's major revision request. Accept or respectfully decline with rationale, maintaining a collaborative tone.

Instructions

[PRO] Draft a professional response to an author's major revision request. Collaborative, not defensive. Accepts or respectfully declines with rationale.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
change_requestedYes
is_aligned_with_dataYes
action_or_counterYes
next_stepsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_author_revision_response_prompt' tool. Decorated with @mcp.tool(), it takes four parameters (change_requested, is_aligned_with_data, action_or_counter, next_steps) and returns a formatted prompt string for drafting a professional response to an author's major revision request. The response varies based on whether the change is aligned with the data.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_author_revision_response_prompt(
        change_requested: str,
        is_aligned_with_data: bool,
        action_or_counter: str,
        next_steps: str
    ) -> str:
        """
        [PRO] Draft a professional response to an author's major revision request.
        Collaborative, not defensive. Accepts or respectfully declines with rationale.
        """
        aligned_text = "is aligned with our data" if is_aligned_with_data else "is not fully aligned with our data"
        action_type = "Accept the change" if is_aligned_with_data else "Respectfully explain why we are not incorporating this change"
    
        return f"""An author has requested {change_requested} to our manuscript draft.
    This {aligned_text}.
    
    Draft a professional response that:
    - Acknowledges and thanks the author for their input
    - {action_type}: {action_or_counter}
    - Confirms next steps: {next_steps}
    
    Tone: collaborative, not defensive. Length: 150-200 words."""
  • server.py:997-997 (registration)
    Registration entry in the tool directory listing, mapping the tool name to its description.
    ("get_author_revision_response_prompt", "Respond to author major revision request"),
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations. Description states 'Draft a professional response' but tool name suggests it returns a prompt, not a direct response. Fails to disclose output type or side effects.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words, front-loaded purpose. Could be slightly expanded for clarity but maintains conciseness.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite output schema, description is too brief for a 4-param tool. Lacks parameter explanations, usage context, and workflow integration hints.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Zero schema description coverage. Description does not explain any of the 4 required parameters (change_requested, is_aligned_with_data, action_or_counter, next_steps), leaving the agent to guess their meaning.

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?

Description clearly states the tool drafts a professional response to an author's major revision request, including tone and acceptance/decline options. It is distinct from sibling tools like get_peer_review_response_prompt.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Implied usage for responding to author revision requests, but lacks explicit when to use vs alternatives (e.g., get_rebuttal_disagreement_prompt). No guidance on when not to use.

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/pubspro/medwriter-mcp'

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