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

ufsc-moodle-mcp

by jeanmartina
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

Verificar em tempo real no Moodle o resultado de um lote de avaliações publicado

verify_grading_batch
Read-onlyIdempotent

Verifies each affected group and member against fresh Moodle data to confirm grades, feedback comments, member counts, workflow state, and visibility match the approved grading plan.

Instructions

Reconsulta os dados diretamente no Moodle (fresh=true, nunca confiando apenas na resposta de escrita) e confere, para cada grupo e cada integrante afetado, se nota, comentário da avaliação (gradingFeedbackComments), contagem de membros, estado de workflow e visibilidade correspondem exatamente ao plano aprovado.

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": "verify_grading_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planIdNoplanId do plano preparado/publicado (opcional se operationId for informado).
operationIdNooperationId utilizado em commit_grading_batch (opcional se planId for informado).
expectedPublicationStateNoEstado esperado de publicação para conferência (inferido automaticamente da operação quando omitido).

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 readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, and the description adds genuinely new behavior: the query is forced fresh (fresh=true) and equality is checked per group and per affected member against the approved plan. It stops short of describing what the response looks like when a mismatch is found.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the key action (re-query Moodle with fresh=true) before listing what is compared. No filler, though the nested list of five checked attributes makes it slightly heavy to parse.

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 read-only tool with full schema coverage and annotations carrying the safety profile, the description covers the input side and defines what is verified. With no output schema, however, it leaves the result contract undefined — an agent cannot tell whether mismatches are returned, thrown, or summarized, which matters for a verification tool.

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 100%, so parameter meaning is already documented, including the planId/operationId mutual optionality and the expectedPublicationState enum with its auto-inference. The description only reinforces that the compared target is the 'approved plan', adding little beyond the schema; 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 states a specific verb (re-query and compare) and resource (grading batch results in Moodle), and enumerates the exact attributes compared: grade, gradingFeedbackComments, member count, workflow state, visibility. The verification role is clearly distinct from prepare_grading_batch/commit_grading_batch, though the siblings are never named explicitly.

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 clause 'nunca confiando apenas na resposta de escrita' implies the tool is used after a write/commit, which is useful contextual guidance. However, it never states when to skip verification, how to choose between planId and operationId, or how this differs from just re-reading via get_submissions.

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