itu-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Submit Assignment File

submit_assignment

Destructive

Upload a local file to a Ninova assignment slot. Requires confirm=true to post; otherwise returns a dry-run preview, so ask the user before confirming.

Instructions

Upload a local file to one Ninova assignment slot via the official multipart form. Requires confirm=true to actually post; without it, returns a dry-run preview only. Ask the user before confirming.

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

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`course`	No
`confirm`	No
`file_path`	Yes
`assignment`	No
`slot_index`	No
`upload_url`	No
`allow_replace`	No
`slot_description`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed4 schema fields changedv1.2.1Oct 14, 2026

removedOutput schema / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -true
```

addedOutput schema / properties

Added value: +{
+  "result": {
+    "additionalProperties": true,
+    "title": "Result",
+    "type": "object"
+  }
+}

addedOutput schema / required
```
Added value: +[
+  "result"
+]
```

changedOutput schema / title

Previous value: -"submit_assignmentDictOutput"New value: +"submit_assignmentOutput"

First observedv0.2.0Jul 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (destructive=true, not idempotent, openWorld), so the description earns credit for adding behavior the annotations cannot express: the dry-run preview gate, the multipart upload path, and the required user confirmation step. It omits whether replacement is possible (allow_replace) or how errors surface, keeping it from a 5.

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?

Three tight sentences with no waste: the action is front-loaded, the confirm/dry-run rule follows, and the safety instruction closes. Every sentence earns its place.

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 no explanation, and the destructive-write safety is well covered. However, for a tool taking 8 zero-coverage parameters, the description leaves the agent unable to infer what most arguments mean or where to obtain them, which is a real completeness gap.

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 coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must carry the burden, yet it explains only confirm and implies file_path. It says nothing about course, assignment, slot_index, upload_url, allow_replace, or slot_description, leaving most of the interface undocumented in both places.

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 and resource ('Upload a local file to one Ninova assignment slot') plus the transport mechanism ('official multipart form'), which is enough to distinguish it as the write counterpart to read-only siblings like get_assignment_upload_slots. It does not name those siblings explicitly, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 operational guidance: confirm=true actually posts while omitting it yields a dry-run preview, and it instructs the agent to ask the user before confirming. It stops short of 5 because it never points at get_assignment_upload_slots for discovering the slot_index/upload_url this tool consumes.

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

Deploy Server