Skip to main content
Glama

get_plan_detail

Retrieve the complete lesson details and paper slot blueprints for a course plan to prepare teaching materials.

Instructions

读某课程计划的全部课次明细(🔴 备课前读「这节课的编排蓝本」)→ :9090 GET /teacher/schedule/plan/{id}。返回 {ok, plan, lessons}。

当前链条最硬的读缺口:现有 upsert_course_plan 只写、list_schedule 只给场次概览,读不到 某课次的分段蓝本 / 课内锚点 → 圈题无依据。本工具补上。 参数: plan_id : 课程计划 id(字符串雪花号;list_schedule 的场次里带 plan_lesson_id 可回溯到 plan)。 返回: plan : {id, name, targetType, targetId, termTag, year, materialNote, defaultPaperSlots(计划默认专项卷位模板), status, createTime, updateTime, lessonCount} lessons : [{id, planId, lessonSeq, title, lessonType('0'教学/'1'测试), tag, sourceRef, thinkingAction, layerTarget(层数目标如 '2→3'), parentCopy(家长版文案,🔴 家长可见、 无内部词), kgNodeIds:[str](🔴 课内锚点,直接喂 search_questions(subject_id=)), paperSlots:[{slot_seq,name,style,rules,note,paper_id,manual_ready}](🔴 PRD-B-101 专项卷位蓝本: 每卷位对应一张专项卷;空卷位=待组,逐卷位走 compose_paper/create_paper(lesson_id,slot_seq)), paperSlotsInherited(true=继承自计划 default_paper_slots), prepState(备课态,服务端按 paper_slots 推导:'0'未备/'1'备课中/'2'已备好)}]

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plan_idYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, description discloses it's a read operation returning {ok, plan, lessons}. It details return fields and their usage, but lacks explicit read-only assertion.

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?

Description is structured with bullet points and emojis for clarity, front-loaded with purpose. Slightly lengthy but well-organized.

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?

Output schema exists and is fully described inline. Every field is explained with usage hints and cross-references to other tools, making it self-contained.

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 has 0% description coverage, but description details plan_id as '课程计划 id(字符串雪花号)' and explains how to obtain it from list_schedule, adding meaning 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?

Description states verb '读' (read), resource '课程计划' (course plan), and result '全部课次明细' (all lesson details). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_schedule by explicitly pointing out that it fills the gap of reading full lesson details.

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?

Description advises using before lesson prep: '备课前读「这节课的编排蓝本」'. It explains it fills a gap in the current chain but does not explicitly state 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.

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