Creates fill-in-the-blank questions for quizzes, supporting automatic scoring with exact or partial matching, ordered or unordered answers.
创建填空题
| 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 / FillBlankQuestion / 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 / FillBlankQuestion / 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 / FillBlankQuestion / 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?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only states 'create fill-in-the-blank question' and omits any information about side effects, permissions, rate limits, or return value. The agent cannot infer non-obvious behavior.
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 extremely concise (4 characters in Chinese). While it is front-loaded, it sacrifices necessary detail for brevity. It is not optimally helpful.
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 FillBlankQuestion object, multiple optional parameters) and no output schema, the description is severely lacking. It does not mention required fields like paper_id and question, nor does it explain the structure of the question object.
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 description coverage is high (75%), meaning the schema already documents most parameter meanings. The tool description adds no extra parameter information, so it meets the baseline but does not improve understanding.
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 '创建填空题' clearly indicates the action (create) and the resource (fill-in-the-blank question). It is specific enough to know what the tool does, but it does not differentiate from other question creation tools like create_single_choice_question. The name already conveys this, so the description adds minimal value.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., create_multiple_choice_question, create_code_question). The description lacks context for choosing this specific question type.
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