Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
uplus-mcp

uplus-mcp

by jiangjunw15-web
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

uplus_read_experiment_detail

Retrieve an experiment's requirements, materials, deadline, and submitted files by course, experiment, and student-experiment IDs to review or verify submission details.

Instructions

Read experiment detail: requirements, material, deadline, submitted files.

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": {
      "course_id": "<course_id>",
      "exp_id": "<exp_id>",
      "stu_exp_id": "<stu_exp_id>"
    },
    "name": "uplus_read_experiment_detail"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
exp_idYes
course_idYes
stu_exp_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.6.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral burden. 'Read' and the list of returned content make it clear this is a retrieval operation, but it does not mention permissions, authentication, error behavior, or whether the operation has any side effects.

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?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every phrase identifies either the action or a returned detail category.

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?

Given three required identifiers with no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It summarizes returned content but leaves parameter meaning and operational behavior largely unexplained.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

All three required parameters (course_id, exp_id, stu_exp_id) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not explain what they identify or how they relate. The resource name loosely implies exp_id, but course_id and stu_exp_id remain undocumented.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ('Read experiment detail') and enumerates the detail categories returned. It clearly distinguishes detail-reading from listing, though it does not explicitly name or contrast with siblings like uplus_list_experiments.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

It implies the tool is for reading experiment details but gives no explicit when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives. An agent must infer that this follows listing experiments or inspecting an experiment.

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