Campus Virtual MCP

get_submission_status

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve an assignment’s submission status and files, preserving the original evidence for review and verification.

Instructions

Consulta estado y archivos de una tarea assign, conservando la evidencia original.

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": {
      "course_id": "<course_id>",
      "activity_id": "<activity_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_submission_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`course_id`	Yes	ID de la materia o módulo, según el parámetro.
`activity_id`	Yes	ID de la materia o módulo, según el parámetro.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`files`	Yes
`state`	Yes
`can_edit`	Yes
`evidence`	Yes
`course_id`	Yes
`source_url`	Yes
`activity_id`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered without the description. "Conservando la evidencia original" hints at a non-mutating, evidence-preserving read, but it is vague and adds little beyond what the annotations state; nothing about pagination, file listings, or freshness is disclosed.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity, however, comes at the cost of the routing detail that would make it more useful, and the untranslated product term reduces clarity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and both required parameters are documented in the schema. What is missing is the tool's position in the submission workflow and what "archivos" (file metadata vs. contents) means, which matters given three sibling submission tools.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about the two parameters, and the schema's own descriptions are copy-pasted and identical for course_id and activity_id, so an agent gets no disambiguation from either source.

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 ("Consulta") and resource ("estado y archivos de una tarea assign"), so an agent can tell it reads submission status and attached files rather than mutating anything. It does not differentiate itself from workflow siblings such as prepare_submission or submit_assignment, and the mixed-language phrase "tarea assign" is ambiguous.

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 statement of when to call this versus prepare_submission, upload_files, or submit_assignment, all of which sit in the same apparent submission workflow. The only hint is the generic read framing, which the annotations already convey.

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

Deploy Server