enem-mcp

Meu desempenho

meu_desempenho

Read-only

Track performance statistics from corrected ENEM mock exams, including overall, subject, and year breakdowns plus progress over time, to identify strengths and guide study.

Instructions

Mostra estatísticas de desempenho nos simulados corrigidos: aproveitamento geral, por disciplina, por ano da prova e evolução.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "meu_desempenho"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral scope beyond that: it constrains the data domain to corrected simulados only and discloses the aggregation axes the result is broken into. It does not say how an empty result is handled or confirm the data is scoped to the calling user (only implied by "meu").

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?

A single front-loaded sentence: verb and subject first, then the four breakdown dimensions as a compact list. No filler, no repetition of the title, and every clause carries information.

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?

With no parameters and no output schema, the description must carry the return-shape burden, and it does list the four aggregates an agent will get back. Remaining gaps are minor: no note on empty-state behavior when no corrected simulados exist, and no mention of auth or timeframe scoping.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain and nothing the description could add. Baseline 4 applies for the parameterless case.

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?

"Mostra estatísticas de desempenho" pairs a specific verb with a specific resource, and the enumeration (aproveitamento geral, por disciplina, por ano, evolução) pins down exactly what the statistics are. It does not name or contrast any sibling, but the function is distinct enough from listar_simulados/corrigir_simulado that confusion is unlikely.

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?

The qualifier "nos simulados corrigidos" implicitly tells the agent this only applies after a simulado has been corrected, which is a useful prerequisite signal. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no routing to an alternative tool for raw simulado listings or per-question data.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server