enem-mcp

Preparar explicações do simulado

preparar_explicacoes

Read-only

Retrieves exam questions with answer keys so the AI can write explanations for each answer before exporting a PDF; keep the answer key out of the chat.

Instructions

Retorna as questões de um simulado COM gabarito, para a IA escrever a explicação de cada resposta e depois chamar exportar_simulado_pdf com explicacoes. Não mostre o gabarito ao usuário no chat.

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": "preparar_explicacoes"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`simulado_id`	Yes	ID retornado por criar_simulado
`incluir_imagens`	No	Anexa as figuras das questões

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only establish that this is a safe read (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false). The description adds the non-obvious behavioral facts: the payload deliberately contains the answer key, that key is sensitive and must be withheld from the user, and the output feeds a specific follow-up call.

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?

Two sentences with no filler; the return content is front-loaded and the workflow plus the confidentiality warning follow immediately. Every clause carries information the agent needs.

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 output schema, the description carries the return-value burden, and it does describe the content (questions with answer key) and the required next step. It does not address response size, ordering, or pagination for large simulados, which is the only remaining gap.

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 coverage is 100%, so `simulado_id` and `incluir_imagens` are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no further syntax or default details about either parameter, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description uses a specific verb and resource ('Retorna as questões de um simulado COM gabarito') plus the downstream purpose (writing explanations). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like corrigir_simulado or exportar_simulado_pdf, which is named explicitly.

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?

It gives an explicit two-step workflow: write an explanation per answer, then call `exportar_simulado_pdf` with `explicacoes`. It also states a when-not constraint ('Não mostre o gabarito ao usuário no chat'), leaving nothing to inference.

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

Deploy Server