Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
enem-mcp

enem-mcp

by jpmamededs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Gerar PDF do simulado

exportar_simulado_pdf

Generate a mock exam PDF with questions, images, an answer sheet, and resolved questions showing the answer key and explanations. Export or regenerate it from a simulado ID.

Instructions

Gera (ou regera) o PDF de um simulado: questões com imagens, folha de respostas e, ao final, as questões resolvidas com o gabarito destacado e a explicação de cada resposta (se fornecida).

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": {
      "simulado_id": "<simulado_id>"
    },
    "name": "exportar_simulado_pdf"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
explicacoesNoUma explicação específica por questão (obtenha as questões com `preparar_explicacoes`). Ficam salvas para as próximas exportações
simulado_idYesID retornado por criar_simulado
incluir_gabaritoNoAdiciona ao final uma página 'GABARITO ABAIXO' e as questões resolvidas

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the write-ish, world-touching nature is partly covered. The description adds that output is a PDF document with a defined structure and that it can be regenerated, but omits that the call persists explanations as a side effect (stated only in the schema parameter text) and says nothing about how the resulting file is delivered or whether old PDFs are overwritten.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the action first and the artifact breakdown after; no filler or marketing language. The long parenthetical list of contents is dense but every element maps to observable output.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description never states what the tool returns (file path, URL, inline bytes) or where the PDF ends up, which is the main thing an agent needs after calling it. It also does not mention the side effect of permanently storing explanations, despite that persisting into future exports.

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 100%, so the baseline applies: simulado_id provenance, explicacoes persistence, and incluir_gabarito behavior are all already documented in the schema. The description only restates the effect of incluir_gabarito (resolved questions with gabarito and explanations at the end), adding no new parameter detail.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ("Gera (ou regera) o PDF de um simulado") and enumerates the artifact contents: questions with images, answer sheet, and resolved questions with highlighted gabarito and explanations. That is far more specific than a restatement of the title, though it does not explicitly contrast with the export-adjacent siblings.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance against siblings such as criar_simulado, corrigir_simulado, or preparar_explicacoes. The parenthetical "(ou regera)" hints that repeat calls are safe, but the agent must infer that rather than being told.

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