Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
enauczanie-mcp

enauczanie-mcp

by Zambrzyckii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_assignment_status

Retrieve a student's submission status, submitted files, grade, and teacher feedback for a specific assignment using its assignment ID.

Instructions

Return the user's submission state, submitted files, grade and teacher feedback for one assignment (assignment_id from list_assignments, not the module id).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "assignment_id": "<assignment_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_assignment_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
assignment_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the returned data (submission state, files, grade, feedback), so the agent knows this is a read of student-specific data. It omits edge behavior such as what is returned when nothing is submitted and whether files must be fetched via download_file.

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?

A single sentence with the payload front-loaded and the parameter caution placed in a parenthetical at the end. No wasted words.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description must explain what comes back, and it enumerates that. Minor gap: no mention of how to retrieve the actual file contents (download_file) or the empty-submission case.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does by giving the provenance of assignment_id and disambiguating it from a module id. It could also state the expected type/format, but the disambiguation is the meaning that matters most.

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?

Specific verb plus resource with the exact payload enumerated: submission state, submitted files, grade and teacher feedback for one assignment. That clearly separates it from list_assignments (which only lists) and get_grades (which presumably aggregates grades).

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?

Tells the agent where assignment_id comes from (list_assignments) and explicitly warns against using the module id, which is the most likely invocation error. It does not contrast itself with get_grades or explain what to do for a whole course, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools