Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Crear o editar un juego

save_game

Create or edit an interactive game for a Chispa classroom lesson using a game type and configuration; it stays a draft unless published.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Crea un juego interactivo en una lección o edita uno existente (envía game_id). El config depende del tipo: clasificar: {buckets:[{key,label}] (2-6), items:[{text,bucket,why?}] (3-60)}; ordenar: {items:[{text,label?,order}] (3-30)}; emparejar: {pairs:[{left,right}] (3-30)}; memoria: {pairs:[{left,right}] (3-10)}; verdadero_falso: {items:[{text,answer,why?}] (3-60)}; completar: {items:[{text con ___, answer, options?, why?}] (3-40)}; sopa y descifrar: {items:[{text,clue?}] (3-30)}. Queda en borrador salvo que se publique.

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>",
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "kind": "<kind>",
      "title": "<title>",
      "config": "<config>"
    },
    "name": "save_game"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindYesTipo de juego
titleYesTítulo
configYesConfiguración según el tipo
promptNoConsigna
game_idNoJuego a editar
positionNo
publishedNo
session_idYesLección
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it is a non-read-only but non-destructive write with a closed world, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value beyond that: the item stays in draft unless published, and hard cardinality limits per game type are disclosed. It does not explain what happens to an existing game's config when editing (merge vs replace) or the permission model.

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?

Purpose and the create/edit rule are front-loaded, and the config breakdown is dense but every clause carries a schema fact the agent cannot get elsewhere. The single long semicolon chain is harder to scan than a list would be, but no sentence is wasted.

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 9-parameter mutation tool with a nested free-form config and no output schema, the description covers the essential unknowns: create vs edit, draft default, and per-kind config contracts. Remaining gaps (edit semantics, position handling, return value) are minor but real.

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?

The schema leaves config as a free-form object with additionalProperties and no documented inner shape, and the description fully compensates by specifying the exact keys and count ranges for all eight game kinds. It adds nothing for position, prompt, or the id fields, which the schema already documents at 78% coverage.

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 pair (create/edit) plus the resource (interactive game inside a lesson) and names the discriminator for the edit path (send game_id). The kind enumeration in the description further separates this from siblings such as save_quiz_question or save_flashcard.

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?

The create-vs-edit condition is explicit (omit game_id to create, supply it to edit) and the draft-vs-published behavior is stated. It stops short of naming sibling alternatives or prerequisites (e.g. needing an existing lesson/session before saving a game).

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