Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Editar lección

update_lesson

Updates only the lesson fields you send, such as title, content, video link, objectives, or publish status, so teachers can edit course lessons without overwriting unchanged data.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Cambia los datos de una lección de un curso que puedes editar. Solo se modifica lo que envíes. Confirma con la persona antes de publicar.

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>"
    },
    "name": "update_lesson"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNoTítulo
formatNo
contentNoContenido en Markdown (omítelo para no cambiarlo; "" lo borra)
summaryNoResumen (omítelo para no cambiarlo; "" lo borra)
key_ideaNoIdea clave (omítelo para no cambiarlo; "" lo borra)
positionNo
publishedNo
video_urlNoEnlace de YouTube; «» lo quita
objectivesNoReemplaza la lista de objetivos
session_idYesLección
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare it is a non-read-only, non-destructive, closed-world mutation. The description adds real value beyond that: patch semantics ("Solo se modifica lo que envíes"), an authorization precondition, and an interaction requirement to confirm before publishing. It still does not say what publishing triggers (student notifications) or whether edits are reversible.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler: actor/purpose first, mutation semantics second, safety instruction last. A bracketed audience tag leads and nothing is repeated from the schema.

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 an 11-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers scope, patch behaviour, permissions and the pre-publish confirmation. The remaining gap is consequence disclosure around the published flag, which matters for a tool that can change student-visible state.

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 sentence "Solo se modifica lo que envíes" supplies the partial-update contract that the schema only states for content/summary/key_idea, leaving title, format, position and published undocumented. That is genuine added meaning, though edge cases (e.g. clearing title or position) remain unaddressed.

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?

"Cambia los datos de una lección de un curso" gives a specific verb (cambiar/update) and resource (lección), which cleanly separates it from get_lesson, delete_lesson, create_lesson and update_module. It does not explicitly name a sibling or a boundary case, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two usable conditions are given: the course must be one the caller can edit ("un curso que puedes editar"), and the agent should confirm with the person before publishing. No explicit exclusion or pointer to alternatives, which is what keeps it at 4 rather than 5.

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