Creates an attachment question with rich text or Markdown title, optional image/attachment assets, and configurable score and required status. Insert into an existing paper at a specified position.
创建附件题
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| paper_id | Yes | 试卷ID（通过 query_group_tasks 获取） | |
| question | Yes | ||
| need_parse | No | true 返回纯文本（plain），false 返回原始富文本结构（raw） | |
| need_detail | No | 是否在返回中包含完整题目内容（选项、答案等），仅需确认成功时设为 false |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
v1.5.2Input schema / $defs / AttachmentQuestion / properties / title / descriptionPrevious value: -"题干纯文本（与 title_raw 二选一）。只在一两行的简单题目用；结构化题干（OJ、分小节）走 title_raw。"New value: +"题干纯文本（与 title_md/title_raw 三选一）。只在一两行的简单题目用。"Input schema / $defs / AttachmentQuestion / properties / title_assetsAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "items": {
+ "additionalProperties": true,
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "题干 Markdown 引用的资源列表，仅与 title_md 一起使用。格式：[{\"id\":\"img_1\",\"type\":\"image\",\"name\":\"图.png\",\"file_path\":\"/abs/图.png\"}]；图片占位：，附件占位：[附件名](asset://file_1)。",
+ "title": "Title Assets"
+}Input schema / $defs / AttachmentQuestion / properties / title_mdAdded value: +{
+ "anyOf": [
+ {
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ {
+ "type": "null"
+ }
+ ],
+ "default": null,
+ "description": "题干 Markdown（与 title/title_raw 三选一）。工具会自动转为小雅 Draft.js 富文本；适合 AI 输出的分节题干、列表、代码块、样例输入输出；图片/附件用 asset://id 占位并配合 title_assets。",
+ "title": "Title Md"
+}Input schema / $defs / AttachmentQuestion / properties / title_raw / descriptionPrevious value: -"题干富文本（Draft.js 格式），与 title 二选一，优先本字段。\n格式：{\"blocks\": [...], \"entityMap\": {}}，每行一个 block，空行 = text=\"\" 的 unstyled block。\nblock.type 常用：unstyled / header-one~six / code-block / ordered-list-item / unordered-list-item / blockquote。\ninlineStyleRanges.style 常用：BOLD / ITALIC / UNDERLINE / CODE / lineThrough / color-red / backgroundColor-#ffff02 / fontSize-20。\noffset/length 以 UTF-16 单位计数（中文一字 1 单位）。\n美化要点：小标题【XX】整段 BOLD、小节间留空行、样例用 code-block、关键词用 CODE 或 color-blue；\n完整支持矩阵见 xiaoya-teacher-skill/references/title_rich_text.md。"New value: +"题干富文本（Draft.js 格式），与 title/title_md 三选一，优先本字段。\n格式：{\"blocks\": [...], \"entityMap\": {}}，每行一个 block，空行 = text=\"\" 的 unstyled block。\nblock.type 常用：unstyled / header-one~six / code-block / ordered-list-item / unordered-list-item / blockquote。\ninlineStyleRanges.style 常用：BOLD / ITALIC / UNDERLINE / CODE / lineThrough / color-red / backgroundColor-#ffff02 / fontSize-20。\noffset/length 以 UTF-16 单位计数（中文一字 1 单位）。\n美化要点：小标题【XX】整段 BOLD、小节间留空行、样例用 code-block、关键词用 CODE 或 color-blue；\n完整支持矩阵见 xiaoya-teacher-skill/references/title_rich_text.md。"v1.3.3Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, and the description offers no behavioral information beyond the tool's name. It does not disclose that this is a mutation operation, any required permissions, or side effects.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal but fails to convey useful information. While concise, it does not earn its place as it adds no value beyond the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (nested object, multiple parameters), the description is severely lacking. It does not explain the tool's purpose, return values, or constraints, making it completely inadequate.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is high at 75%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description '创建附件题' is a direct translation of the tool name, which is a tautology. It does not add any differentiation from sibling tools such as create_code_question or create_multiple_choice_question.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No context or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.
curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Sav1ouR520/xiaoya-teacher-mcp-server'
If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server