Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Chispa MCP

Chispa MCP

by jeffercbs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Editar escenario

update_scenario

Updates an existing classroom scenario and its reference answer, modifying only the fields provided so untouched settings remain unchanged.

Instructions

[Equipo del aula] Cambia un escenario y su respuesta de referencia. 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>",
      "scenario_id": "<scenario_id>"
    },
    "name": "update_scenario"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
questionNoQué se pide (omítelo para no cambiarlo; "" lo borra)
min_charsNo
publishedNo
situationNoSituación a resolver
repeatableNo
repeat_daysNo
scenario_idYesEscenario
classroom_idYesAula
max_attemptsNo
model_answerNoRespuesta de referencia (omítelo para no cambiarlo; "" lo borra)
pass_percentNo
feedback_failNoMensaje si no aprueba (omítelo para no cambiarlo; "" lo borra)
feedback_passNoMensaje si aprueba (omítelo para no cambiarlo; "" lo borra)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it is a patch-style edit where only supplied fields change, and it warns to confirm with the person before publishing. It does not say what happens to unpublished/related criteria or how validation failures surface.

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, front-loaded with the scope tag, then the action, then the patch semantics and the publish caution. Nothing is redundant or padded.

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 14-parameter mutation with no output schema, the description covers what changes and the publish-caution workflow, which is the important part. It leaves gaps on the numeric and boolean parameters and on any side effects (criteria, publish state changes), so it is adequate but not fully complete.

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?

With 14 parameters and only 50% schema description coverage, the description's "Solo se modifica lo que envíes" usefully generalizes the omit-to-keep / ""-to-clear semantics that the schema states for only some text fields. Still, the meaning of published, repeatable, repeat_days, min_chars, max_attempts and pass_percent is left entirely to bare schema types and bounds.

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 un escenario y su respuesta de referencia" gives a specific verb (edit) plus the resource and the key field being modified, which separates it from create_scenario, get_scenario and delete_scenario. It does not name a sibling explicitly, so differentiation is inferred from the verb rather than stated.

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 this is a partial-update tool and "Confirma con la persona antes de publicar" sets a publish-workflow condition, which is useful context. However, no alternative is named (e.g. when to use create_scenario vs. update_scenario vs. save_scenario_criterion), and there are no stated prerequisites or error conditions.

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