zju-mcp

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: schedule retrieval, transcript retrieval, course listing, homework listing, todo listing, homework submission, and homework retraction. No overlap or ambiguity exists.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools follow a consistent 'zju_verb_noun' pattern (e.g., zju_get_schedule, zju_list_courses, zju_submit_homework), making naming predictable and easy to understand.
Tool Count5/5
Seven tools is a well-scoped set for a university platform server, covering essential operations without being overly large or too small.
Completeness4/5
The tools cover core workflows (scheduling, homework management, course listing). Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for viewing detailed course info or announcements, but the main tasks are supported.
Average 4.3/5 across 7 of 7 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- No community issues in the last 6 months
- 2 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.
If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.
MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. States '只读' (read-only), which is transparent. Mentions output format (time-stamped segments) and optional parameters (max_segments, with_translation). Lacks details on error handling, rate limits, or behavior when sub_id is invalid. Adequate but not comprehensive.
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?
Very concise: three sentences covering purpose, prerequisites, and condition. Front-loaded with main action. No redundant words. Efficient and clear.
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?
No output schema provided, yet description only vaguely describes output as '带时间戳的逐段中文文本'. Does not specify structure (e.g., array of objects with fields), possible limits on segments, or handling of missing data. with_translation parameter hints at extra field but not described. Incomplete for a tool without output schema.
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 coverage is 100% for all three parameters. Description mentions sub_id and its source but adds no extra meaning beyond the schema. No additional context for max_segments or with_translation. Baseline 3 is appropriate as parameters are well-documented in 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?
Description explicitly states the tool retrieves speech recognition transcripts for a class from 智云课堂, including time-stamped Chinese text. It mentions the prerequisite sub_id from sibling tool zju_get_schedule and condition that only '回放' status classes have transcripts. Clearly distinguishes from siblings like zju_get_schedule and homework 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?
Provides explicit prerequisites (needs sub_id from zju_get_schedule) and condition (only '回放' status). Implicitly guides when not to use (missing sub_id or non-playback status). Does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but context is clear enough.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of transparency. It declares the tool is read-only ('只读'), which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects, error conditions, or rate limits. For a simple read operation, this is adequate but not exhaustive.
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?
The description is two sentences long, extremely concise, and front-loads the core purpose. Every sentence adds value: the first sentence explains what is retrieved and its content, the second links to another tool and states read-only nature. No unnecessary words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: input (with defaults and timezone), output fields, read-only status, and integration with a sibling tool. It lacks details on error handling or empty results, but overall is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already describes both parameters (date, end_date) with 100% coverage. The description adds meaningful context: the time zone (东八区, East 8), default behavior (date defaults to today, end_date defaults to date), and the output fields. This goes beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.
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 retrieves a course schedule for a day or date range from '智云课堂' (Zhiyun Classroom), listing specific output fields (sub_id, course name, teacher, etc.). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like zju_get_transcript by noting that sub_id can be passed to that tool, and from other list tools by focusing on schedule data.
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 gives implicit guidance by mentioning that sub_id can be used with zju_get_transcript, suggesting a workflow. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., when to prefer zju_list_courses), nor does it mention situations where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It declares the operation as read-only ('只读'), specifies returned fields, and explains how the id relates to other tools. No side effects or destructive actions are implied.
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?
Extremely concise single sentence that packs purpose, output fields, inter-tool relationship, and read-only nature without any extraneous words.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 2-param listing tool with no output schema, the description covers output fields, read-only behavior, and id usage. It lacks mention of pagination or ordering but is otherwise complete.
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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description adds no new parameter-level details beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 applies.
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 it lists all courses from '学在浙大' with specific fields (id, name, code, etc.), and distinguishes from siblings by noting the id can be passed to zju_list_course_homework.
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: it corresponds to the web '我的课程' page and is read-only. However, it does not explicitly compare to sibling tools like zju_get_schedule or zju_get_transcript, leaving the agent to infer when to use this vs alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses write operation, required flag, and edge-case handling. No annotations provided, so description carries burden; it is adequate but lacks detail on potential irreversible effects.
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?
Single dense sentence with front-loaded operation type and effect. Every piece of information is necessary and presented efficiently.
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?
For a simple single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, prerequisites, and edge cases.
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 covers 100% of parameter with description; tool description adds the same info (activity_id required). No significant additional semantic value beyond 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?
Clearly states verb 'retract' and resource 'submitted homework version'. Differentiates from sibling zju_submit_homework by specifying it returns to draft state.
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 condition (teacher's allow_retract) and edge cases (already draft/no submission), but does not explicitly list when not to use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Discloses that this is a real write operation (写操作，会真实提交) and that submission delivers to the teacher. Mentions retraction possibility if enabled. Without annotations, description carries full burden; it covers the key behavioral trait of being a permanent submission.
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?
Very concise one-paragraph description with critical information front-loaded (write operation, real submission). No fluff, every sentence adds value.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a write tool with 3 params and no output schema, description covers inputs, return values (submission_id, file name, time), and links related tools. Could mention potential overwrite behavior, but still fairly complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline 3. Description adds context for activity_id (source from list or URL) but largely restates schema for file_path and comment. Minimal additional semantic value beyond schema, but sufficient.
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 submits a local file as homework to 'ZJU Online', using specific verbs '提交' and resources. It distinguishes from sibling tools like zju_retract_homework by noting the submission is real and that retraction is possible separately.
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?
Explicitly tells when to use this tool (to submit homework) and provides alternative (zju_retract_homework for retraction) and prerequisite (obtain activity_id from zju_list_todos or URL).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses read-only nature and that only incomplete items are returned. While auth or rate limits are not mentioned, the description offers sufficient behavioral context for a simple read operation.
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, zero waste. Front-loaded with purpose, includes key details and alternative. Every sentence is valuable.
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?
Tool has no parameters, no output schema, and low complexity. Description covers purpose, scope, limitation (incomplete only), timezone, and references alternative tool. Complete for its simplicity.
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?
No parameters exist (schema coverage 100%). Description states '无参数' which adds no new info beyond schema but confirms it. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 it lists all incomplete todos from courses.zju.edu.cn, including course name, type, and deadline. It distinguishes from sibling zju_list_course_homework which lists all homework (including submitted) for a specific course.
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?
Explicitly states when to use this tool (to see incomplete todos) and when not to (to see all homework for a course, use zju_list_course_homework). Provides clear alternative.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior5/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description fully discloses the read-only nature ('只读'), explains the behavior of include_submission and score visibility based on grading/publication status, and clarifies that weight_percent is a weight, not a score. This is comprehensive behavioral coverage.
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 a single paragraph of moderate length. It front-loads the main purpose and distinctions, but could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of parameter effects. Still, every sentence adds value with minimal redundancy.
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, the description explains key return fields (activity_id, score, weight_percent, submission details) and links to sibling tools for actions. It covers all essential aspects for an agent to correctly invoke and interpret results.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds meaningful context: course_id source from zju_list_courses, include_submission default true and its effect on response (submission details, score, comments). It explains return data tied to parameter values, exceeding schema alone.
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 lists '全部作业' (all homework) under a course, including various statuses, and provides activity_id for subsequent submission/retraction actions. It explicitly distinguishes from zju_list_todos, which only shows pending todos.
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 explicitly compares with zju_list_todos, noting this tool can handle 'completed' assignments while the sibling only handles pending ones. It also advises when to set include_submission to false for speed, and clarifies conditions for score/comment retrieval.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vibe-learning-in-zju MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EviterLesRoses2/vibe-learning-in-zju/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EviterLesRoses2/vibe-learning-in-zju)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![vibe-learning-in-zju MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EviterLesRoses2/vibe-learning-in-zju/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/EviterLesRoses2/vibe-learning-in-zju)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/EviterLesRoses2/vibe-learning-in-zju'

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