Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Detalle de la lección

get_lesson
Read-only

Retrieve a lesson's full content—summary, objectives, text, video, format—and counts of its quizzes, flashcards, and games to review or plan classroom instruction.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula · solo lectura] Devuelve el contenido completo de una lección (resumen, objetivos, texto, vídeo, formato) y cuántos quizzes, tarjetas y juegos tiene.

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>",
      "session_id": "<session_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_lesson"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
session_idYesLección
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the "solo lectura" tag is largely redundant. The description does add genuine behavioral value by disclosing that aggregate counts come back alongside the content, sparing extra list calls, and by scoping it to the classroom team. It says nothing about error behavior for a non-existent session_id or the shape of the payload.

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 front-loaded sentence: the bracketed scope tag comes first, then the return content in a compact parenthetical, then the counts clause. No filler or repetition beyond the mildly redundant "solo lectura" already covered by annotations.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description carries the return-shape burden well by enumerating the fields and the aggregate counts. Given annotations already cover the safety profile, the main remaining omission is any hint about behavior when the lesson does not exist or is in another classroom.

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 both UUID parameters documented as "Lección" and "Aula" respectively, so the structured data already establishes the two identifiers. The description adds nothing about parameter semantics and does not restate the required classroom/session pairing, 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?

States a specific verb ("Devuelve") and resource ("lección") and enumerates what is returned: resumen, objetivos, texto, vídeo, formato, plus counts of quizzes/tarjetas/juegos. That enumeration implicitly separates it from siblings like list_lesson_items (which lists items rather than counting them), but no alternative is named explicitly, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.

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?

Usage is only implied: the "[Equipo del aula · solo lectura]" tag signals a read context, and the returned content suggests it is the tool to call when you need lesson detail before editing or adding items. There is no explicit when-to-use statement, no exclusion, and no comparison with get_course_outline, get_module, or list_lesson_items.

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