Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Temas del curso

list_course_themes
Read-only

Lists a course's themes and prerequisites within a classroom so you can review curriculum dependencies before planning or managing content.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula · solo lectura] Lista los temas de un curso con sus prerrequisitos.

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>",
      "course_id": "<course_id>"
    },
    "name": "list_course_themes"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_idYesCurso
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so "solo lectura" merely restates structured data and earns no credit. What the description does add beyond the annotations is first that access is scoped to the classroom team and second that prerequisites are included in the result set; however, it says nothing about ordering, pagination, or whether unpublished themes appear.

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 short sentence with the scope tag front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the bracketed tag duplicates the annotation title/read-only information rather than carrying unique payload.

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 two-parameter read-only listing tool, the safety profile is fully covered by annotations, and "con sus prerrequisitos" gives a hint of the return shape even without an output schema. It is still thin on what the listing actually contains (fields, ordering, empty states), which an agent would need to interpret results confidently.

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 UUID parameters documented, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline of 3 applies. The description's phrase "de un curso" reinforces the course scoping but adds no format, constraint, or cross-parameter meaning beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource ("Lista los temas de un curso") and adds the output scope ("con sus prerrequisitos"), which distinguishes it from siblings dealing with modules, lessons, or the outline. It falls short of a 5 only because it doesn't explicitly contrast itself with the nearest alternatives such as get_course_outline or list_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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The "[Equipo del aula]" tag implies the usage context, and the tool is a plainly read-only listing, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over get_course_outline or list_courses. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated beyond the team scope.

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