Skip to main content
Glama
wuruiqi

academic-workflow-mcp

by wuruiqi

workflow_write_note

Creates a structured literature note in Obsidian from a citation key, metadata, and section content, setting note status to pending review.

Instructions

Write a structured literature note directly to the Obsidian vault at 10-Literature/.md with proper YAML frontmatter and section headings.

The note is created with status "pending-review". Call workflow_confirm_review after the human has checked the note.

Args: citekey: Better BibTeX citation key (used as filename, e.g. "wang2024deep"). metadata: Dict with keys — title, authors (list[str]), year, journal, doi, zotero_link. Use the 'item' dict from workflow_get_paper. sections: Dict mapping section keys to content strings. Recognized keys: one_line_summary, research_question, methods, results, contributions, limitations, relevance, highlights, further_reading Any key may be omitted; the heading is still written with a placeholder. overwrite: If False (default) and a note already exists, returns an error so you do not silently clobber a reviewed note.

Returns: {"success": bool, "path": str, "obsidian_link": str, "message": str}

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
citekeyYes
metadataYes
sectionsYes
overwriteNo
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations provided, so description fully carries the burden. Discloses file location, YAML frontmatter, status 'pending-review', placeholder handling for omitted sections, overwrite semantics, and return value structure. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured with separate paragraphs for overall behavior, then Args and Returns. Concise without unnecessary fluff. Could be slightly tighter but is effective.

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?

Given no output schema, description includes return type and structure. Covers all parameters, behavior, workflow with sibling tool reference. Nested objects are sufficiently detailed. No gaps for a write tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0% but description thoroughly explains each parameter: citekey as Better BibTeX key (filename), metadata with expected keys (title, authors, year, journal, doi, zotero_link), sections with recognized keys and placeholder behavior, overwrite with default false. Adds meaning beyond schema structure.

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?

Clearly states the verb 'write' and the resource 'structured literature note', with specific location '10-Literature/<citekey>.md' and mention of YAML frontmatter and section headings. Distinguishes from sibling tools like workflow_get_note and workflow_attach_zotero_note by focusing on note creation.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: note is created with status 'pending-review' and instructs to call workflow_confirm_review after human checks. Also explains overwrite behavior to avoid clobbering. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides clear workflow context.

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/wuruiqi/academic-workflow-mcp'

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