Skip to main content
Glama

get_revised_manuscript_cover_letter_prompt

Draft a professional cover letter for a revised manuscript submission, incorporating major revisions and journal details.

Instructions

[PRO] Draft a cover letter for a revised manuscript submission. Professional, confident, and collegial tone. ~200-250 words.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
journalYes
manuscript_titleYes
manuscript_numberYes
major_revisionsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Implementation Reference

  • The handler function for the 'get_revised_manuscript_cover_letter_prompt' tool. Decorated with @mcp.tool(), it takes journal, manuscript_title, manuscript_number, and major_revisions as parameters and returns a prompt string for drafting a cover letter for a revised manuscript submission.
    @mcp.tool()
    def get_revised_manuscript_cover_letter_prompt(
        journal: str,
        manuscript_title: str,
        manuscript_number: str,
        major_revisions: str
    ) -> str:
        """
        [PRO] Draft a cover letter for a revised manuscript submission.
        Professional, confident, and collegial tone. ~200-250 words.
        """
        return f"""Write a cover letter for a revised manuscript submission to {journal}.
    
    Manuscript title: '{manuscript_title}'
    Manuscript number: {manuscript_number}
    Key revisions made:
    {major_revisions}
    
    Tone: professional, confident, and collegial.
    Length: ~200-250 words.
    
    Pro tip: Highlight your most substantive revisions — editors read cover letters
    before reviewer responses."""
  • server.py:985-985 (registration)
    Registration of the tool in the pro_tools list, mapping the function name to a description string for listing/display purposes.
    ("get_revised_manuscript_cover_letter_prompt", "Draft cover letter for revised submission"),
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses tone and word count but does not clarify if the output is a drafted letter or a prompt (ambiguous given tool name includes 'prompt'). Missing details on behavior like input validation or rate limits.

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?

Two sentences with no unnecessary words. Purpose and key details are front-loaded.

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?

Description lacks clarity on output nature (prompt vs. letter) and fails to cover parameter semantics. Given a moderately complex tool with 4 required inputs, more detail is needed for completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description provides no explanation of the four parameters (journal, manuscript_title, manuscript_number, major_revisions). The agent gets no guidance on required inputs 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 clearly states the tool drafts a cover letter for a revised manuscript, specifies tone (professional, confident, collegial) and length (~200-250 words). It distinguishes from siblings like 'get_author_revision_response_prompt' which is for response letters.

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?

The description implies usage for revised manuscript submissions but does not explicitly state when not to use or mention alternatives among sibling tools. No guidance on selecting this tool over others.

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