Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
uplus-mcp

uplus-mcp

by jiangjunw15-web
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

uplus_audit_homework

Audit one homework read-only for completeness by listing unanswered objective questions even after submission, and count subjective, programming, and attachment items separately.

Instructions

Read-only completeness audit for one homework (no withdraw, no submit).

Every question is read from the student-side detail, so an already submitted homework can be audited safely. The result lists which objective questions carry no answer; subjective / programming / attachment items are counted separately and never make the homework "incomplete". Fix a gap by withdrawing (if withdrawable), then uplus_answer_homework.

The API status understates (a handed-in homework may read as not submitted), so withdrawable comes from the page's real button state; set refresh_page_state=False to skip that page read and trust the API.

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": {
      "task_id": "<task_id>",
      "course_id": "<course_id>"
    },
    "name": "uplus_audit_homework"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
task_idYes
course_idYes
refresh_page_stateNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.7.5

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden and does so: it declares read-only behavior, explains that data is read from the student-side detail (safe on submitted work), discloses how subjective/programming/attachment items are counted, and warns that the API status understates submission state so ``withdrawable`` comes from real button state.

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?

Front-loaded with the read-only scope, then the result semantics, then the remediation flow, then the API-vs-page caveat. Dense but every sentence adds information; only the parenthetical nesting makes it slightly harder to skim.

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 browser-backed, page-state-dependent tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the result contains (unanswered objective questions plus separately counted non-objective items) and what ``withdrawable`` means. It stops short of describing the result's shape or field names, which would matter since no output schema exists.

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 0%, so the description must compensate; it explains refresh_page_state precisely (skip the page read and trust the API) but leaves task_id and course_id as bare identifiers, never clarifying that task_id is the homework id or how course_id relates to it.

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 and resource ("read-only completeness audit for one homework") and immediately constrains scope with "(no withdraw, no submit)", which separates it from the write-side siblings uplus_answer_homework and uplus_inspect_homework without needing their schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit when-to-use (auditing a homework, including one already submitted) and an explicit remediation path: withdraw if ``withdrawable``, then call ``uplus_answer_homework``. It also tells the agent when to flip refresh_page_state, so the decision points are all covered.

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