Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Responder un chat

reply_chat

Sends a reply to a classroom conversation after showing the message text and requesting confirmation, so users can verify content before it is posted.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Envía una respuesta en una conversación del aula. Muestra el texto a la persona y pide su confirmación antes de enviarlo.

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>",
      "thread_id": "<thread_id>",
      "body": "<body>"
    },
    "name": "reply_chat"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesMensaje
thread_idYesConversación
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the write/safety profile is known. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral detail not present in structured fields: the text is shown to the person and confirmation is requested before sending (human-in-the-loop). It does not cover authorization requirements or what happens to the thread on send, so it is not fully complete.

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?

Two short sentences, the action and scope are front-loaded, and the confirmation safeguard follows immediately. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 3-required-parameter write tool with full schema coverage, no output schema, and annotations covering safety, the description supplies what is needed plus the confirmation workflow. Minor gaps remain around thread state changes and attribution of the reply, but an agent can invoke it correctly.

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% (body='Mensaje', thread_id='Conversación', classroom_id='Aula'), so the schema already explains every parameter. The description adds no extra meaning such as body formatting, threading behavior, or identifier sourcing, which matches the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Envía una respuesta en una conversación del aula', which is clearly distinct from siblings like list_waiting_chats, get_chat_thread or delete_chat. The '[Equipo del aula]' tag adds scoping context. It stops short of naming alternatives explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.

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 by the verb and resource: an agent infers it should call this when a reply must be posted in an existing classroom thread. There is no explicit when-to-use versus when-not, no mention of related tools such as get_chat_thread for reading context first, and no preconditions stated.

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