Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
enauczanie-mcp

enauczanie-mcp

by Zambrzyckii
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_h5p_content

Retrieve the text of an H5P exercise, including questions, answers, and flashcards, using course and module IDs to access specific content.

Instructions

Return the text of an H5P exercise (module of type h5pactivity, id from get_course_contents): questions, answers, flashcards.

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": {
      "course_id": "<course_id>",
      "module_id": "<module_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_h5p_content"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_idYes
module_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. It implies a read-only return operation and lists the kind of content returned, but it does not mention permissions, error behavior for non-H5P modules, or any other operational constraints.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The key operation and content type appear immediately, followed by useful parenthetical context.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable sense of what is returned. However, it leaves course_id semantics and error/return structure unaddressed, so it is adequate but not complete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain both parameters. It clarifies that the module id comes from get_course_contents and constrains the module type, but it adds no meaning for course_id beyond the schema title.

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 states a specific verb and resource: returns the text of an H5P exercise. It also names the relevant module type and distinguishes this content from generic module text, so an agent can identify the tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives clear usage context by specifying that the module must be of type h5pactivity and that the id comes from get_course_contents. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives such as get_module_text, but the intended scenario is clear.

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