ufsc-moodle-mcp

Listar questionários (quizzes) da disciplina

get_quizzes

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve all quizzes for a Moodle course by course ID, including open and close dates, time limits, and maximum grades to review course assessments.

Instructions

Lista todos os questionários (quizzes) de uma disciplina, com datas de abertura/fechamento, limite de tempo e nota máxima.

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_quizzes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`courseId`	No	ID da disciplina no Moodle.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false and a closed-world scope, so the safety profile needs no restatement. The description usefully adds that each quiz carries opening/closing dates, a time limit and a max grade, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, permissions, or visibility filtering (e.g., hidden quizzes).

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 no filler, front-loading the resource and then the returned attributes. Nothing is redundant with the title or schema in a wasteful way.

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 rich annotations, the definition covers both purpose and the main return fields even without an output schema. The gaps are minor: exact return shape (IDs, titles, counts) and whether quizzes are filtered by visibility are left unstated.

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 100% and the single courseId parameter already has a clear description ("ID da disciplina no Moodle."). The description only implies the course scoping through "de uma disciplina" and adds no new format or validity detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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+resource ("Lista todos os questionários (quizzes) de uma disciplina") and scopes it to a single course. It also names the key attributes returned (opening/closing dates, time limit, max grade), which distinguishes it from sibling read tools like get_assignments or get_quiz_grade, though no sibling is explicitly named.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative among the many siblings (get_assignments, get_quiz_grade, get_course_contents). Usage is only implied by the word "disciplina" matching the courseId parameter.

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