Creates a fill-in-the-blank question for a specified paper. Supports rich text titles, multiple blanks, and automatic scoring settings.
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_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 | |
| need_parse | No | true 返回纯文本（plain），false 返回原始富文本结构（raw） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description fails to disclose any behavioral traits such as side effects on the paper, required permissions, or return behavior. Merely restating the name does not meet transparency needs.
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 short (one Chinese phrase) but lacks substantive information. It is under-specified, not genuinely concise.
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 complexity of the tool (4 parameters, nested object, related to paper creation) and absence of annotations and output schema, the description is completely inadequate for an agent to understand its context and use correctly.
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 75%, and the description adds no additional parameter meaning. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema already provides substantial documentation.
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?
Description '创建填空题' is a direct translation of the tool name, adding no new information. It is a tautology that does not clarify the tool's specific purpose or distinguish it from sibling tools like create_single_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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. There are many sibling question creation tools, but the description provides no context for selection.
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