Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ufsc-moodle-mcp

ufsc-moodle-mcp

by jeanmartina
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Consultar capacidades, versão, OCR, limites e ferramentas do UFSC Moodle MCP

get_moodle_capabilities
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve server version, available tools, active features, OCR status, limits, and batch-grading support to verify Moodle MCP capabilities and update client caches.

Instructions

Retorna metadados de versão e protocolo do servidor UFSC Moodle MCP (v1.2.1), a lista completa de 28 ferramentas registradas e disponíveis, funcionalidades ativas, status detalhado dos motores de OCR local (Poppler pdftoppm + Tesseract e idiomas instalados), limites operacionais, suporte a avaliação em lote controlada (prepare/commit/verify) e guia de atualização de cache de catálogo em clientes MCP externos.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_moodle_capabilities"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checkMoodleConnectionNoSe true, consulta também metadados básicos da instância Moodle (core_webservice_get_site_info) sem expor credenciais.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: it names the local OCR stack (Poppler pdftoppm + Tesseract with installed languages), flags operational limits, and notes cache-refresh guidance for external MCP clients, and the checkMoodleConnection param explicitly promises not to expose credentials.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is a single dense run-on sentence packing seven distinct content categories, which hurts scannability. The core purpose is front-loaded, and each item is arguably relevant, but the enumeration would read better as a structured list.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the burden of describing return content — and it does so thoroughly, enumerating the metadata, feature flags, OCR diagnostics, limits, and batch-grading support. For a one-optional-param, read-only introspection tool this is close to complete; only the return structure/format remains unspecified.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and a single optional boolean whose semantics are fully documented in the schema itself, the description adds no meaning beyond the structured field. Baseline 3 applies; it does not restate or clarify the parameter.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Retorna') with a precisely enumerated resource set: version/protocol metadata, the full list of 28 registered tools, active features, OCR engine status, operational limits, batch-grading support, and cache-refresh guidance. This is clearly a meta/introspection tool, distinct from action siblings like get_courses or get_assignments, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the overlapping get_site_info sibling.

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?

Usage is only implied by the content list — an agent can infer it is a discovery/diagnostic call, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., before other tools, for troubleshooting) or when to prefer get_site_info instead. No explicit exclusions or alternatives are given despite get_site_info being a close sibling.

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