esq-builder-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Esq Validate Package

esq_validate_package

Validate ESQ question-bank ZIPs with a built-in checker matching official esq.py rules, or specify the official CLI for subprocess comparison.

Instructions

校验 ESQ 包（默认内置校验器, 与刷题机官方 esq.py 同规则）。

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": {
      "zip_path": "<zip_path>"
    },
    "name": "esq_validate_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`zip_path`	Yes	ESQ 包路径
`validator_path`	No	可选, 指定后改用官方校验器 CLI（backend/tools/validate_question_bank.py） subprocess 对账——默认内置实现已与其保持一致并由一致性测试守护

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It adds that the default built-in validator follows the same rules as the official esq.py, but does not disclose side effects, permissions, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only.

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 states the purpose and default behavior with no redundant text. Every clause earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is simple, has a full input schema and an output schema, so return values and parameters are covered elsewhere. However, with no annotations and no usage context, the description leaves gaps around when to choose it and its read-only/safety profile.

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 two parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3.

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?

States a specific verb (校验) and resource (ESQ 包), making the tool's action clear. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as esq_build_package or esq_upload_and_publish, so it stops short of full 5-level differentiation.

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 statement of when to use this tool instead of building, uploading, parsing, or hot-word siblings, and no prerequisites. It only describes a default validator behavior, not selection context.

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

Deploy Server