Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Crear lección

create_lesson

Create an editable reading lesson at the end of a course module; it stays in draft unless publication is requested, and confirm with the teacher before publishing.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Crea una lección de lectura al final de un módulo de un curso que puedes editar. Queda en borrador salvo que pidas publicarla; confirma con la persona antes de publicar.

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": {
      "classroom_id": "<classroom_id>",
      "module_id": "<module_id>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "create_lesson"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleYesTítulo de la lección
formatNolectura
contentYesContenido en Markdown
publishNoPublicarla de inmediato
summaryNoResumen de una o dos frases
key_ideaNoLa idea que debe quedar
module_idYesMódulo
video_urlNoEnlace de YouTube
objectivesNoObjetivos de aprendizaje
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world write, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: default draft state, editability of the created lesson, and a confirmation requirement before publishing. It says nothing about permissions, limits, or what is returned, so it is useful but not rich.

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, no filler. The creation/placement fact comes first and the publish caveat second, which is the right order for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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 10-parameter creation tool with 90% schema coverage and annotations present, the description covers the two things the schema cannot: placement at module end and the draft/publish safety behavior. It omits the non-reading formats and the optional enrichment fields, but those are documented in the schema.

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 90%, so the schema already documents title, content, summary, key_idea, video_url, objectives and the ids. The description only adds meaning for the publish flag (draft-by-default), leaving format, objectives and video_url to the schema. Baseline 3 fits when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 and resource ("Crea una lección") plus a precise placement ("al final de un módulo de un curso"), which separates it from create_module and update_lesson without opening their schemas. It does not name a sibling explicitly, and "lección de lectura" narrows the purpose slightly more than the schema's format enum (lectura/presentacion/actividad) actually does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives real context for the publish decision: the lesson stays a draft unless publication is requested, and the agent is told to confirm with the person before publishing. There is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over create_module/update_lesson, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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