Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Aprobar o rechazar una solicitud

decide_access_request

Approve or reject a classroom access request by specifying the classroom, member request, and decision.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Aprueba o rechaza una solicitud para entrar al aula. Confirma con la persona antes de hacerlo.

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>",
      "member_id": "<member_id>",
      "decision": "<decision>"
    },
    "name": "decide_access_request"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
decisionYesDecisión
member_idYesSolicitud
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation profile is known. The description adds the meaningful behavioral cue that the decision should be confirmed with the affected person first. It does not disclose what changes on approval vs rejection (membership granted, notification sent) or whether the action is reversible.

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?

Two short sentences, with the scoping tag and the core action front-loaded before the confirmation caveat. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed tag is terse enough to be slightly opaque on first read.

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 simple three-parameter decision tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the key human-confirmation prerequisite. What is missing is the consequence of each decision and where the request IDs come from, which an agent would need to sequence the call confidently.

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% with three required parameters and an explicit enum for the decision values, so the schema carries the parameter burden. The description adds no meaning beyond it (e.g. that member_id refers to the pending request, not a generic member), which is the baseline-3 case.

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 pair (aprueba/rechaza) and a specific resource (una solicitud para entrar al aula), so the agent knows exactly what operation is performed. It does not name the sibling tool that produces these requests (list_access_requests), so differentiation is left implicit rather than explicit.

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 '[Equipo del aula]' tag scopes the tool to classroom-team users and the sentence 'Confirma con la persona antes de hacerlo' gives a real prerequisite before invoking it. However, there is no guidance on when to use this versus listing/inspecting requests first, and no note on whether a decision can be changed afterwards.

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