Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Crear o editar una tarjeta

save_flashcard

Create a flashcard or edit an existing one for a Chispa lesson or course deck; provide classroom and card content, and include a card ID to update.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Crea una tarjeta de repaso o edita una existente (envía card_id). Pasa session_id para una tarjeta de lección, o solo course_id para una del mazo general del curso.

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>",
      "front": "<front>",
      "back": "<back>"
    },
    "name": "save_flashcard"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
backYesCara trasera
frontYesCara delantera
card_idNoTarjeta a editar
positionNo
course_idNoCurso
publishedNo
session_idNoLección
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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 safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds the classroom-team scope and the create/edit branching, but says nothing about permissions, whether omitted fields are wiped on edit, the published default, or the response. That is meaningful extra context but not rich behavioral disclosure.

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 compact sentences, front-loaded with the team scope and the primary action. Every clause carries routing information, though the parenthetical branching is dense for a quick read.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is an 8-parameter mutation with no output schema and only 75% schema description coverage. Missing are the edit semantics for unspecified fields (position, published), whether course_id is required on edit, and what identifiers are returned — real gaps for an agent invoking a write tool.

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 coverage is 75%, so card_id, course_id, session_id, and classroom_id are already documented. The description genuinely adds meaning by explaining the create/edit switch and the session_id-vs-course_id selection, which the schema does not. It still leaves position and published unexplained, and doesn't clarify whether course_id and session_id may be combined or what front/back limits mean in practice.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (create or edit a flashcard) and explicitly separates creation from editing via card_id, plus the lesson-card vs course-deck variants via session_id/course_id. An agent can tell it apart from add_flashcards and delete_flashcard without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Gives explicit conditional routing: send card_id to edit, session_id for a lesson card, or only course_id for the general course deck. It stops short of naming when to use the sibling add_flashcards (bulk creation) instead, so it is not a full when/when-not map.

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