Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ecoledirecte-mcp

ecoledirecte-mcp

by riadh-mnasri
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

consulter_devoirs

Fetch a student's homework assignments from EcoleDirecte using their student ID, providing a clear list of tasks to complete.

Instructions

Récupère le cahier de texte (devoirs à faire) d'un élève.

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": {
      "studentId": "<studentId>"
    },
    "name": "consulter_devoirs"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
studentIdYesIdentifiant EcoleDirecte de l'élève (voir lister_eleves)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It clearly implies a read operation via 'récupère', but it does not mention output shape, possible side effects, auth requirements, or date scoping. It is adequate but thin.

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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The action and object are stated immediately, and the parenthetical 'devoirs à faire' clarifies scope without extra words.

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?

For a simple lookup tool with one well-documented parameter, the description gives enough context for an agent to choose and call it. It does not mention what fields are returned or whether assignments are date-filtered, but the tool's complexity is low enough that these are not critical gaps.

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?

The single parameter is fully documented in the schema ('Identifiant EcoleDirecte de l'élève'), and the description reinforces that the homework belongs to one student. Since schema coverage is 100%, the description does not need to add much, but it also adds little beyond what the schema already states.

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 is precise: it uses a specific verb ('récupère') and an explicit object ('le cahier de texte (devoirs à faire) d'un élève'). This makes the tool's purpose immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like consulter_notes or consulter_absences.

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?

The description implies the intended use—retrieving a student's homework—but does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives or state exclusions (e.g., not for past assignments). Sibling tool names help, but the description itself does not provide selection guidance.

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