Skip to main content
Glama
enauczanie-mcp

enauczanie-mcp

by Zambrzyckii

get_module_text

Retrieve the full text, link targets, and files for a specific Moodle course module. Use it to read complete descriptions, page content, or assignment instructions.

Instructions

Return the full text of one module (module_id from get_course_contents): the whole description, the body of a page or the instructions of an assignment, with link targets and the module's files.

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_module_text"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_idYes
module_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the disclosure burden, and it does well by describing exactly what content is returned, including link targets and file references. It does not cover permissions, error behavior, or how the referenced files are represented, which keeps it below a 5.

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 dense sentence that front-loads the action and result, with the content enumeration following naturally. 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?

No output schema or annotations exist, and the description covers the return content well enough to set expectations. The remaining gap is how 'the module's files' are surfaced (URLs to pass to download_file, or inline content), which an agent would still need to discover.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the origin of module_id (from get_course_contents) but says nothing about course_id, leaving one of two required parameters undocumented anywhere.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Return the full text of one module') and enumerates what the text contains: description, page body, assignment instructions, link targets, and files. This clearly differentiates it from get_course_contents (which lists modules) and from file-oriented siblings.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The parenthetical '(module_id from get_course_contents)' implies the prerequisite workflow, which is useful. However, it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance versus alternatives such as get_h5p_content or download_file, even though it mentions 'the module's files' without saying whether they are returned, listed, or must be fetched separately.

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