Skip to main content
Glama
djlarrix

examen-grado

by djlarrix
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

guardar_perfil_examen

Saves a student's exam profile from their documents or narrative: modality, parts, duration, instructions, commission style, rubric format, grading criteria, pass threshold; requires a source.

Instructions

Guarda cómo es el examen del estudiante según SUS documentos o relato: modalidad, partes, duración, instrucciones, estilo de la comisión, formato de la pauta de corrección, calificación y exigencia. Se combina con el perfil oficial (lo aportado queda marcado). Exige fuente.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notasNo
estiloNoCómo pregunta la comisión o qué premia la corrección.
fuenteYes
partesNo
exigenciaNoFracción del puntaje para el 4,0 (0,6 = 60 %).
modalidadNo
calificacionNo
formato_pautaNoCómo es la pauta oficial: ítems, pesos, bonus, alternativas.
instruccionesNoInstrucciones que da el examen (qué se exige en cada respuesta).
nombre_examenNo
duracion_minutosNo
formato_preguntasNoTipo de preguntas del examen escrito.
exposicion_minutosNoDuración de la exposición o disertación, si la hay.
modalidad_por_ramoNoSi cambia por ramo, p. ej. {"civil": "escrita", "procesal": "oral"}.
universidad_nombreNoSi la universidad no está en la lista.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.10.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / exposicion_minutos
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Duración de la exposición o disertación, si la hay.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / formato_preguntas
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Tipo de preguntas del examen escrito.",
+  "enum": [
+    "desarrollo",
+    "caso",
+    "seleccion_multiple"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / modalidad_por_ramo
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Si cambia por ramo, p. ej. {\"civil\": \"escrita\", \"procesal\": \"oral\"}.",
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observedv0.9.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses two useful traits: that data merges into the official profile and that user-supplied data 'queda marcado', plus the required 'fuente'. However, it omits write semantics such as overwrite vs merge on conflicts, permission needs, or what happens to unspecified fields.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two sentences with the action front-loaded and no filler. The long field enumeration is dense but each item earns its place by mapping to schema properties, and the merge/mark note is compact.

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 15-parameter nested mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the conceptual scope reasonably and notes the merge behavior, but leaves write/overwrite semantics and the undocumented parameters unaddressed. Adequate but with clear gaps given the schema complexity.

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 53%, so the schema itself documents roughly half the parameters. The description enumerates many of the same fields (modalidad, duración, estilo, formato de pauta, calificación, exigencia) but adds little format or constraint detail beyond what the schema already provides; the 7 undocumented params get no compensating explanation. Baseline 3 is appropriate for mid coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb+resource ('Guarda cómo es el examen del estudiante') and enumerates the exact facets captured (modalidad, partes, duración, instrucciones, estilo, formato de pauta, calificación, exigencia). It also implies its relationship to the official profile via 'Se combina con el perfil oficial', which helps separate it from the sibling perfil_examen, though it never names that sibling directly.

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?

Implies usage via 'según SUS documentos o relato' and states the required parameter ('Exige fuente'), but offers no explicit when-to-use vs perfil_examen or other siblings, and no when-not-to-use conditions. Usage is inferable rather than spelled out.

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