Skip to main content
Glama

Avance de un estudiante

get_student_detail
Read-only

Displays a student's lesson-by-lesson progress in a classroom, grouped by module with quiz scores and attempts for read-only review.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula · solo lectura] Muestra el avance lección por lección de un estudiante del aula, agrupado por módulo, con puntajes de quiz e intentos.

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>",
      "user_id": "<user_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_student_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
user_idYesEstudiante
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds permission context beyond that: 'Equipo del aula · solo lectura' signals the caller must belong to the classroom team, and it discloses the shape of the output (grouped by module, quiz scores, attempts).

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 dense sentence, front-loaded with the access tag before the core purpose. Nothing is wasted, though the bracketed tag and prose are joined without clear separation between permission note and behavior.

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-required-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers access scope, unit of analysis, grouping, and what data comes back. Missing only explicit routing against sibling progress/member tools.

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 required UUIDs ('Estudiante' and 'Aula') documented in the schema. The description only restates that the call concerns one student in one classroom, adding no format or constraint details beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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: shows a single student's lesson-by-lesson progress, grouped by module, including quiz scores and attempts. Scope (one student, one classroom) is clear and implies a contrast with the classroom-wide 'classroom_progress' sibling, though that sibling is never named explicitly.

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 implied by 'de un estudiante del aula' — call it when you need per-student detail rather than aggregate classroom data. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement and no named alternative such as classroom_progress or list_members.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.