Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Crear o editar un criterio de la rúbrica

save_scenario_criterion

Creates or edits a scenario rubric criterion in Chispa; include the criterion ID to update an existing entry.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Crea un criterio de la rúbrica de un escenario o edita uno existente (envía criterion_id).

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>",
      "scenario_id": "<scenario_id>",
      "label": "<label>"
    },
    "name": "save_scenario_criterion"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
labelYesQué debe contener una buena respuesta
topicNoTema
if_metNoMensaje si lo cumple
weightNo
positionNo
if_missedNoPista si no lo cumple
session_idNoLección del módulo que conviene repasar
scenario_idYesEscenario
classroom_idYesAula
criterion_idNoCriterio a editar

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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. The description adds essentially nothing beyond that: it does not say whether an edit replaces all fields or only the supplied ones, what happens to position values of sibling criteria, whether the criterion is re-scored, or what permissions/ownership are needed. The '[Equipo del aula]' prefix implies a scope restriction but is not explained.

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 front-loaded sentence with the verb and resource first and the edit condition trailing — nothing is wasted or buried. It is arguably over-compressed for a 10-parameter mutation, but there is no padding or redundancy.

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?

For a 10-parameter write tool with no output schema, the description omits what is required for creation versus editing, whether partial updates are allowed, how weight/position defaults behave, and what the call returns. With no annotations covering these semantics, the one-sentence description is not sufficient to invoke the tool confidently for edits.

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 80%, so the schema already documents label, topic, if_met, if_missed, session_id and the ids. The description's only parameter-level contribution is noting criterion_id as the edit trigger, which the schema description ('Criterio a editar') already conveys. Baseline 3 applies since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 pair (crea/edita) and a specific resource (criterio de la rúbrica de un escenario), and uses the criterion_id parenthetical to signal the create-vs-edit switch. It does not differentiate itself from the sibling add_scenario_criteria (bulk add) or delete_scenario_criterion, so an agent cannot tell from the description alone why it should pick this tool over bulk add.

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 '(envía criterion_id)' note implies that supplying the id means edit and omitting it means create, which is genuine usage guidance for the mode switch. However there is no statement of when to use this single-item tool versus add_scenario_criteria or add_scenario_criteria-adjacent flows, and no prerequisites (e.g. that the scenario must already exist, or that membership in the classroom is required).

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