Skip to main content
Glama

withdraw_student_mark

Reopen a submitted student paper grading to enable modification of scores and comments. After withdrawal, re-grade and re-submit the updated marks.

Instructions

重开已提交的学生整卷批阅,使分数和评语可以再次修改。

调用前必须确认老师确实要修改已提交成绩。重开后通常继续调用
grade_student_question 或 revise_student_mark,再调用 submit_student_mark 重新提交。

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
group_idYes课程组id(通过 query_teacher_groups 获取)
mark_mode_idYes阅卷模式id(来自 query_test_result 的 mark_mode_id 字段)
answer_record_idYes答题记录id(来自 query_test_result 的 answer_records[].record_id 字段)
is_teacher_recheckNo是否为复评/教师重批模式。普通整卷批阅填 false;复评模式填 true,会调用 review reset 接口。
mark_paper_record_idYes批阅记录id(来自 query_preview_student_paper 的 mark_paper_record_id 字段)
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reopens marking to allow modifications, but does not detail side effects (e.g., previous scores discarded, permissions required). It is not misleading but lacks depth.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise: two sentences for the core purpose plus a brief workflow note. Every sentence contributes meaning, no filler.

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 no output schema and 5 parameters, the description covers the main purpose and recommended workflow. It could mention error cases or what happens to previous scores, but it is sufficient for a mutation tool with a clear task.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and descriptions. The tool description adds no further semantic value beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 the tool's verb 'reopen' and resource 'submitted full-paper marking', distinguishing it from sibling tools like submit_student_mark and grade_student_question. It explicitly explains that it allows scores and comments to be modified again.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit guidance: must confirm the teacher intends to modify submitted marks, and outlines the typical workflow of calling grade_student_question or revise_student_mark then submit_student_mark next. This clarifies when to use and what to do after.

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/Sav1ouR520/xiaoya-teacher-mcp-server'

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