Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Borrar criterio de la rúbrica

delete_scenario_criterion
Destructive

Permanently deletes a rubric criterion from a classroom scenario using its classroom and criterion IDs. Use it to remove outdated or incorrect assessment criteria; this action cannot be undone.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula · irreversible] Borra un criterio de la rúbrica de un escenario.

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>",
      "criterion_id": "<criterion_id>"
    },
    "name": "delete_scenario_criterion"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
classroom_idYesAula
criterion_idYesCriterio

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, so the description earns credit for adding two decision-relevant facts beyond them: that the operation is irreversible and that it operates within the 'Equipo del aula' authorization scope. It does not say what happens to any grading or attempt data tied to the criterion, which is the main remaining gap.

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?

A single short sentence with the risk and scope tags front-loaded before the action, and no redundant or filler wording.

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 tool with no output schema this is minimally adequate: the action, irreversibility, and ownership scope are covered. It omits the consequences of deletion (effect on existing grades/attempts) and the failure mode when the criterion is in use, which an agent would want before calling it.

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% (both UUIDs are labeled 'Aula' and 'Criterio'), so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description only adds that the criterion belongs to a scenario's rubric, which is marginal clarification rather than new semantics.

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 names a specific verb ('Borra') and a specific resource ('un criterio de la rúbrica de un escenario'), which is enough to separate it from siblings like save_scenario_criterion, add_scenario_criteria, or delete_scenario. It stops short of explicitly contrasting with those siblings, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition, and no named alternative (e.g., use save_scenario_criterion to edit rather than delete). The only signal is the bracketed scope tag, which concerns permissions and risk rather than routing between tools.

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