yuketang-mcp

课程活动时间轴

ykt_activities

List course activities such as class records, assignments, and announcements by classroom ID so you can review attendance, homework, and notices.

Instructions

列出某课程的活动（上课记录、作业、公告）。type 含义：5=试卷作业，9=公告，14=上课记录，19=章节作业。上课记录的 coursewareId 即 lessonId，用于查课件。

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": {
      "classroomId": "<classroomId>"
    },
    "name": "ykt_activities"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`page`	No	页号，从 0 开始
`size`	No	每页条数
`region`	No		standard
`classroomId`	Yes	课程班级 ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.1Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses activity type codes and the coursewareId=lessonId mapping, but it does not state ordering/timeline behavior, pagination semantics, permission requirements, or whether all activity types are always returned.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the purpose, followed by type-code semantics and the lessonId/coursewareId linkage. Every sentence adds useful information with no noticeable repetition.

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 type mapping and coursewareId link are valuable, but with no annotations and no output schema the description still leaves gaps: region meaning, pagination/ordering behavior, and the returned activity structure are not explained. It is adequate but not complete for an agent to use confidently in all cases.

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 75%: classroomId, page, and size are documented in the schema, while region has an enum but no description. The description implies classroomId via 某课程 but adds no parameter-level detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate for high schema coverage.

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: 列出某课程的活动, and enumerates the activity subtypes (上课记录、作业、公告) with type codes. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools such as ykt_lesson, ykt_replay_timeline, or ykt_slides, so sibling differentiation is only indirect.

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?

Usage is implied: list a course's activities, and use coursewareId from class records as lessonId for courseware lookup. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance or named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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

Deploy Server