Skip to main content
Glama

Ordenar módulos

reorder_modules

Sets the order of all modules in a Chispa course by applying a complete list of module IDs in the desired sequence. Use it to rearrange course content accurately.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Fija el orden de los módulos de un curso. La lista debe incluir todos los módulos del curso, en el orden deseado.

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>",
      "module_ids": "<module_ids>"
    },
    "name": "reorder_modules"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
course_idYesCurso
module_idsYes
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?

The annotations already declare this is a non-destructive, non-read-only write within a closed system. The description adds the important replace-all requirement that module_ids must be the complete set, which prevents partial-order mistakes. It does not say what happens on an incomplete or stale list, whether the operation is atomic, or what permissions are needed.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the classroom scope tag and then the action plus its constraint. No filler; only the bracketed scope prefix slightly delays the core statement.

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 three-parameter mutation with no output schema, the essential gotcha (full ordered list) is covered. Error behavior, atomicity, and whether unknown module IDs are rejected are left unspecified, which a calling agent would want to know before retrying.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 67% and the per-parameter descriptions are only labels ("Curso", "Módulo", "Aula"). The description supplies the missing meaning for module_ids: the array is an ordered, exhaustive list that defines the new order, not a subset to move.

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?

It states a specific verb+resource: "Fija el orden de los módulos de un curso". An agent can distinguish it from reorder_lessons or create_module by the resource alone. It never names a sibling explicitly, so it stops short of the top score.

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 purpose implies the usage case, and one operational condition is given (the list must contain every module of the course). There is no explicit when-not guidance or comparison to alternatives such as update_module or reorder_lessons.

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