Fetch and filter ClassQuill files by access scope and resource type (files, videos, links, Google Drive) with pagination.
List Files
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Records per page (default 20, max 100) | |
| scope | No | private, classroom, group, personal, org | |
| offset | No | Pagination offset | |
| resource_type | No | file, link, video, google_drive |
| 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, openWorldHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, but the description itself adds no behavioral context beyond what annotations provide. It does not mention pagination behavior, return shape, authentication needs, or any side effects; it also does not contradict the annotations.
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 extremely short, but this is under-specification rather than conciseness. It restates the tool name and does not earn its place by adding useful information.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description does not explain what 'files' refers to, how scope and resource_type interact, or when to choose this over sibling list tools. An agent could invoke the tool mechanically but cannot reliably determine correct parameter combinations or expected results.
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?
The input schema fully documents all four optional parameters, including allowed values for scope and resource_type, and defaults/max for limit. With near-100% schema description coverage, the description need not repeat parameters; it also adds no extra semantic nuance of its own.
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 Files' is effectively a tautology, restating the tool name and title. It identifies a verb and resource but gives no detail about what 'files' means in this system or how it differs from the many sibling list_* tools.
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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_lesson_plans, list_homework, list_classrooms, or list_availabilities. The description provides no context, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.