Skip to main content
Glama

generate_variants

Generate variant problems from a thread, with automatic retry on empty results to ensure complete problem sets.

Instructions

触发变式生成(start_variants 续跑,LLM 轮 ~70s)→ 取题组。

参数: thread_id : make_variants/confirm 后的会话 id。 auto_verify: True=生成后每题自动 sympy 验算;False(默认,产品口径)=每题 tier=pending, 按需 verify_variant。透传 agent_config.auto_verify。 返回: {ok, thread_id, count, variants:[{item_id, seq, stem, answer, solution, qtype, difficulty, tier, verify_status, figure_spec, dna, question_id}]}。 🔴 生成偶发首轮空题组(opus 对压轴母题首轮不收尾)——本工具按 AC4「重试≤2」自动再触发一次 start_variants(实测第二次即出题);两次仍空 → ok:false + 引擎回文,交驱动 agent 处置。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
thread_idYes
auto_verifyNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses key behaviors: occasional empty first attempt due to opus, automatic retry up to 2 times, and fallback to ok:false with engine response. Since no annotations are provided, the description carries full burden and does it well.

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 front-loaded and each sentence adds value, though the warning about empty generation could be slightly more integrated. Overall well-structured but not maximally concise.

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 presence of an output schema, the description's detailed return list is redundant but not harmful. It covers parameters, behavior, and return adequately for the tool's complexity.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description fully compensates. It explains thread_id as the session id after make_variants/confirm, and auto_verify in detail including its effect and default behavior. Adds significant meaning beyond the raw 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 it triggers variant generation and retrieves question sets. It distinguishes from siblings like make_variants, verify_variant, etc., by specifying it is a continuation of start_variants.

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 after make_variants/confirm via thread_id, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings or provide when-not conditions. Guidelines are implied but not explicit.

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/RuntimeAll/teacher-mcp'

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