Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Solicitudes y cursos por activar

list_access_requests
Read-only

List pending classroom access requests and trial students awaiting course activation for a given classroom ID, so you can review who needs approval.

Instructions

[Administrador del aula · solo lectura] Lista quién pide entrar al aula y quién está en prueba esperando que le actives el curso que eligió.

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>"
    },
    "name": "list_access_requests"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint false, and the description adds useful role context ('Administrador del aula') plus the specific pending states shown. However, it does not disclose pagination, ordering, or whether already-resolved requests are excluded.

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?

The description is a single compact sentence with a front-loaded role context, and it communicates the tool's purpose without unnecessary wording.

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 simple one-parameter, read-only listing tool with no output schema, the description gives enough context to select and call it. A small gap remains because it does not clarify whether the result is limited to pending items or how active members are excluded.

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 classroom_id fully documented as the target classroom. The description does not add further meaning about the parameter, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb, 'Lista', and clearly identifies two concrete resources: users requesting access to the classroom and trial users waiting for course activation. This distinguishes it from sibling action tools such as decide_access_request and activate_trial_course.

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 '[Administrador del aula · solo lectura]' context implies the tool is for classroom admins reviewing pending access and trial states, but it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of list_members or when to follow up with decide_access_request/activate_trial_course.

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