Retrieve paginated lists of classrooms from ClassQuill, with optional subject filtering and limit/offset controls for tailored access to tutoring data.
List Classrooms
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Records per page (default 20, max 100) | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| subject_id | No | Filter by subject id, e.g. methods_34 |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | ||
| meta | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds no behavioral context beyond the word 'list', which only restates what the annotations imply. No rate limits, result mutability, or other behavioral traits are disclosed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is minimal but under-specified rather than efficiently informative. 'List Classrooms' is concise in length but provides no substantive content that earns its place beyond repeating the tool name.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple and the annotations plus complete input schema make it minimally callable. However, the description alone does not explain the relationship to get_classroom, whether the list is global or scoped, or what the returned classroom objects represent. This is acceptable for a basic list operation but leaves clear gaps.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents limit, offset, and subject_id with descriptions. The tool description itself adds no parameter-level meaning, but per the rubric the baseline is 3 when the schema carries the full burden.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description 'List Classrooms' is essentially a restatement of the tool name 'list_classrooms'. It states a verb and resource, but adds no additional detail about scope, filtering, or what a classroom listing represents, and it does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_classroom or list_student_groups.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention pagination, filtering, or distinguish list_classrooms from get_classroom or the many other list_* tools in the sibling set. An agent must infer usage entirely from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.