Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Borrar tarjeta

delete_flashcard
Destructive

Permanently remove a flashcard from a specified classroom by providing the classroom and card IDs. Use this irreversible action to delete outdated or incorrect review cards.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula · irreversible] Borra una tarjeta de repaso.

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>",
      "card_id": "<card_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_flashcard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
card_idYesTarjeta
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description contributes "irreversible", which is genuinely additive beyond the annotation, but says nothing about required permissions, cascade effects (e.g., student progress tied to the card), or behavior when the card does not exist.

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 elements, zero waste: the scope/risk tag comes first and the operation second. Nothing could be removed without losing signal.

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 destructive, two-parameter delete with no output schema, the definition covers the essentials (what, scope, irreversibility). It falls short on outcome details an agent would want before an irreversible call: permission requirements, idempotency, and failure behavior for a missing card.

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% and both parameters carry labels ("Tarjeta", "Aula"), so the schema carries the load and the baseline applies. The description adds no meaning about why classroom_id is required or how the pair is validated.

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?

"Borra una tarjeta de repaso" states a specific verb and resource, so the operation is unmistakable. It does not distinguish itself from siblings such as delete_quiz_question or delete_self_check_question, which delete similar lesson items.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance: it never says to prefer save_flashcard for edits, nor what to do when the card is unknown. The only hint is the "Equipo del aula" tag, which implies but does not explain a scope restriction.

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