Campus Virtual MCP

submit_assignment

Guarda la carga del recibo como entrega y verifica el resultado en el campus.

Instructions

Guarda la carga del recibo como entrega y verifica el resultado en el campus.

Guardar puede entregar definitivamente si la actividad no utiliza borradores. finalize=true completa además la confirmación de envío cuando exista. Una declaración de autoría requiere accept_statement=true explícito. No reemplaza entregas existentes ni reenvía POSTs de resultado incierto. Solo invocar para una entrega autorizada con esos archivos y destino; upload_files por sí sola no autoriza este guardado.

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": {
      "upload_id": "<upload_id>"
    },
    "name": "submit_assignment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`finalize`	No
`upload_id`	Yes
`accept_statement`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`stage`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`message`	Yes
`upload_id`	Yes
`files_verified`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 2, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations: warns that saving may submit definitively when the activity has no drafts, explains that finalize=true additionally completes the send confirmation, and requires accept_statement=true for an authorship declaration. The no-retry guidance on uncertain POST results is exactly the operational caveat an agent needs for a non-idempotent (idempotentHint=false) write.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the caveats in order of risk. A few clauses are redundant ('puede entregar definitivamente' re-states the earlier 'guarda ... como entrega'), but nothing is padding.

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?

Output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the destructive/definitive-submit risk and the statement requirement. The remaining gap is the upload_id contract, which matters for a tool whose safety depends on passing the right identifier.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, and it does explain two of three parameters meaningfully (finalize and accept_statement) with behavioral consequences. upload_id is used but never characterized — an agent cannot tell from the text what constitutes a valid or authorized upload id.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: it saves the upload receipt as a submission and verifies the result on the campus. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling upload_files, noting that uploading alone does not authorize this save. It stops short of naming prepare_submission as the upstream step, which keeps it from being a perfect 5.

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?

Gives clear when-to-use (only for an authorized submission with those files and destination) and when-not (does not replace existing submissions, does not resend POSTs of uncertain outcome, upload_files alone is insufficient). The prerequisite relationship to prepare_submission is only implied by 'una entrega autorizada'.

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

Deploy Server