ClassQuill MCP server

list_lesson_participants

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve lesson participants with filters for status, attendance, and pagination to track attendance and manage rosters efficiently.

Instructions

List Lesson Participants

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Records per page (default 20, max 100)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset
`status`	No	pending, accepted, declined, cancelled, removed
`attendance`	No	attended, no_show, excused
`session_id`	No	Filter by session UUID
`student_id`	No	Filter by student UUID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes
`meta`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.4Aug 30, 2026

TDQS

C2.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral traits beyond what the annotations already declare (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.). It does not mention pagination, filtering semantics, or any side effects, so the agent gains no additional insight from the description.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is extremely concise with no filler, but it is more of a title than an informative description. It is under-specified because it repeats the tool name without providing contextual value, so while it is short, it does not fully earn its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that the tool has six optional filters and is part of a large sibling set, the description alone is insufficient to reliably guide invocation. Annotations and output schema help, but the lack of usage context and filter-combination guidance leaves a notable gap.

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 all six parameters are documented with descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific meaning, but the schema already carries the burden; a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly states a verb (List) and a resource (Lesson Participants), making the tool's basic purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_lesson_participant, but the plural 'participants' and 'list' verb imply a collection operation.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_lesson_participant or list_sessions. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or scenarios where one sibling should be preferred over another.

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

Deploy Server