Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Editar módulo

update_module

Modify an existing course module's title, description, objective, kind, position, lock, publication, or opening date. Only the fields you send change, so you can update one detail without altering the rest.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Cambia los datos de un módulo 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>",
      "module_id": "<module_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_module"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNo
titleNoTítulo
lockedNoBloqueado hasta que se abra manualmente
opens_atNoFecha de apertura en ISO 8601; «» la quita
positionNo
module_idYesMódulo
objectiveNoObjetivo (omítelo para no cambiarlo; "" lo borra)
publishedNo
descriptionNoDescripción (omítelo para no cambiarlo; "" lo borra)
classroom_idYesAula

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false), so the description adds real value: it discloses partial-update semantics (untouched fields are preserved), a permission boundary ("que puedes editar"), and a required human confirmation before publishing. It does not mention that empty strings on the clears fields or that omitted fields are the only safe way to skip an update, which the schema carries instead.

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?

Three short sentences with zero filler: scope tag, effect, and the confirmation precondition. Each sentence earns its place, though the bracketed "[Equipo del aula]" prefix is only marginally informative.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations covering behavior, the description covers the mutation semantics and confirmation requirement but leaves the enum kind, locked/published interplay, and position-vs-reorder ambiguity unexplained. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool of this complexity.

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 70%, so the schema already documents most fields. The description contributes one important rule about optional parameters (only submitted fields are changed), but it says nothing about the kind enum (lecciones/video), locked, position or published, which are among the undocumented parameters.

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 specific verb+resource: "Cambia los datos de un módulo de un curso que puedes editar", which clearly separates it from create_module, get_module and delete_module in the sibling list. It does not name any sibling explicitly nor address how it overlaps with reorder_modules for the position field, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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?

"Solo se modifica lo que envíes" implies the partial-update use case and "Confirma con la persona antes de publicar" gives a workflow precondition for publishing. However, there is no guidance on when to prefer reorder_modules over setting position here, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites (edit permissions, unpublished state).

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