ufsc-moodle-mcp

Avaliar entrega individual de aluno (salvar nota e/ou gradingFeedbackComments preservando campos omitidos)

provide_feedback

Idempotent

Record or update a student's assignment grade and feedback comment, preserving existing values when grade, feedback, or workflow state are omitted.

Instructions

Registra ou atualiza a nota e/ou o comentário da avaliação (assignfeedback_comments) de um aluno em uma tarefa do Moodle, preservando valores existentes quando grade, feedback ou workflowState forem omitidos. Para avaliações em lote ou de grupos com etapa de revisão do professor, prefira prepare_grading_batch -> commit_grading_batch -> verify_grading_batch.

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": {
      "assignmentId": "<assignmentId>",
      "studentId": "<studentId>"
    },
    "name": "provide_feedback"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`grade`	No	Nota numérica a atribuir (ex: 9.5 ou 10, conforme a escala da tarefa). Se omitido, preserva a nota atual do aluno.
`feedback`	No	Comentário da avaliação (gradingFeedbackComments / assignfeedback_comments) para o aluno (aceita texto ou HTML). Se omitido, preserva o comentário existente.
`studentId`	Yes	ID do aluno (userid) no Moodle.
`applyToAll`	No	Para tarefas em grupo, se true, solicita ao Moodle replicar para integrantes do grupo (padrão: false para evitar propagação implícita não revisada; use prepare_grading_batch para grupos).
`assignmentId`	Yes	ID da tarefa (assignmentId).
`workflowState`	No	Estado explícito opcional do fluxo de avaliação ("inmarking", "readyforreview", "inreview", "readyforrelease", "released"). Se omitido, preserva o estado atual da avaliação sem forçar "released" implicitamente.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.2.1Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readOnly, idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds real behavioral context beyond that: partial-update semantics (omitted grade/feedback/workflowState preserve current values) and the fact that state is not implicitly forced to "released". It does not describe permissions, failure modes, or the response shape, so it falls short of 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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the first front-loads what the tool does and its preservation behavior, the second handles sibling routing. Nothing is repeated needlessly.

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 6-parameter mutation tool with full schema coverage and safety annotations, the description covers purpose, partial-update semantics and alternatives. The only gap is that, with no output schema, it does not say what a successful call returns (e.g., updated grade state), which an agent might want to confirm.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds a tool-level insight the per-field schema does not: any subset of grade, feedback and workflowState may be supplied and the rest are preserved, making this a partial-update operation. The applyToAll propagation caveat is covered better in the schema than in the description.

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 pair ("Registra ou atualiza") and a precise resource (grade and/or assignfeedback_comments for a student in a Moodle assignment), including the scope constraint that omitted fields are preserved. It is immediately distinguishable from the batch siblings, which it names explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives an explicit routing rule: for batch or group grading with a teacher review step, use prepare_grading_batch -> commit_grading_batch -> verify_grading_batch. That names the alternatives and the condition that selects them, leaving little to inference.

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