Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
yuketang-mcp

yuketang-mcp

by powercess
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

学情分数

ykt_score

Retrieve a lesson's grade breakdown by lesson ID, including attendance, in-class question, and quiz proportions and scores.

Instructions

某次课的得分构成：签到、课堂题、测验各占比例与得分。

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_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
regionNostandard
lessonIdYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it supplies almost nothing. It implies a read of score data but never confirms read-only semantics, whether login (ykt_login) is a prerequisite, or whether scores are live or finalized; for an unannotated tool in a session-based API this is a real gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single compact sentence with no filler and the core concept is front-loaded, which is good. However, the brevity is under-specification rather than efficiency — there is simply not enough content for the sentence to earn its place as the entire definition.

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?

Placeholder.

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 0% across two parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. '某次课' hints that lessonId is required, but the region parameter with its four-value enum (standard/hetang/changjiang/huanghe) is completely unaddressed — the agent gets no idea what it changes or when to override the default.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description names a concrete resource — the score breakdown of one lesson, split into attendance / in-class questions / quizzes with weights and points — so an agent can infer what data comes back. But it is a noun phrase with no verb, so it never states that the tool *retrieves* this, and it does nothing to separate itself from close siblings such as ykt_lesson_summary or ykt_course_progress.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: no mention of when an agent should pick ykt_score over ykt_lesson_summary, ykt_course_progress, or ykt_status. The only implicit hint is '某次课', which suggests per-lesson scope, but no exclusions or prerequisites are given.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools