Skip to main content
Glama

回放时间线

ykt_replay_timeline

Retrieve a classroom replay's full event timeline, including each page flip's slide number and timestamp, to determine which slides were actually shown during the lesson.

Instructions

获取课堂回放的完整事件序列,包括老师每次翻页的页码与时间。shownSlideIndexes 是实际展示过的页,这是判断「哪些页讲过」的唯一可靠途径。

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": {
      "lessonId": "<lessonId>"
    },
    "name": "ykt_replay_timeline"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNostandard
lessonIdYes
includeEventsNo是否返回完整事件序列

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only retrieval of event sequences and highlights shownSlideIndexes, but it does not describe permissions, pagination, rate limits, or what happens when includeEvents is false.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and followed by the key distinguishing detail about shownSlideIndexes. There is no filler or 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 description gives some useful return-value context, notably the event sequence and shownSlideIndexes, but with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, it should do more to explain required inputs and operational behavior.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is only 33%, so the description should compensate, but it never mentions lessonId, region, or includeEvents. Only includeEvents is documented in the schema, and the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the domain context.

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 states a specific verb and resource: retrieving the complete event sequence of a classroom replay, including each page-turn page number and timestamp. It also explains the unique value of shownSlideIndexes for judging which pages were actually taught, which implicitly distinguishes it from slide-listing siblings, though no sibling 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives a clear use case: this is the only reliable way to determine which pages were covered. However, it does not explicitly name when to use alternative tools such as ykt_slides or ykt_lesson_summary, nor does it state when not to use this tool.

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