ClassQuill MCP server

list_rate_cells

Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve tutoring rate cells with filters for band, subject, session type, and tutor tier. Use to review or audit pricing rules.

Instructions

List Rate Cells

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Records per page (default 20, max 100)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset
`band_id`	No	Filter by rate band UUID
`subject_id`	No	Filter by subject id, e.g. methods_34
`include_pay`	No	Include pay-sensitive tutor-pay fields (tutor_pay_mode, tutor_pay_pct, tutor_flat_rate_cents). Default false.
`session_kind`	No	1on1_online, 1on1_inperson, group, classroom
`tutor_tier_id`	No	Filter by tutor tier 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

C2.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. However, the description adds no behavioral context such as pagination behavior, filter interaction, or result size limits beyond what the schema already states.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely short, but it is under-specification rather than concise writing. It simply repeats the tool name and does not use its few words to convey any additional information.

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?

The schema and annotations are rich, and the optional filters are well documented, but the description fails to explain the domain concept of a rate cell or when this tool should be invoked. Because the output schema exists, return-value details are not required, but the core purpose and selection context remain unclear.

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%, and each parameter has a meaningful description, including defaults, examples, and filter semantics. The description itself adds no parameter information, but the schema fully carries that burden, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is simply 'List Rate Cells', which restates the tool name without adding any meaning. It does not explain what a rate cell is or how this tool differs from related siblings like list_rate_bands or list_tutor_tiers.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the large sibling list containing several similar list_* tools, the agent receives no routing context.

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

Deploy Server