ClassQuill MCP server

list_results

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch student results from ClassQuill with filters for date range, mode, status, and student ID. Supports pagination to retrieve records efficiently.

Instructions

List Results

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	completed_at <= ISO date
`from`	No	completed_at >= ISO date
`mode`	No	vce_exam, topic_practice, sac, homework
`limit`	No	Records per page (default 20, max 100)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset
`status`	No	not_started, in_progress, submitted, completed
`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

C2.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. However, the description adds no behavioral context beyond that—no mention of pagination behavior, default ordering, date-range semantics, or relationship to other endpoints. With annotations present, the bar is lower, but the description contributes nothing.

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 only two words and is under-specification rather than valuable conciseness. It is not front-loaded with meaningful information—there is no real content to structure. A short description can be effective, but this one provides no useful detail.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 7 parameters, an output schema, and a large sibling set, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain what results are, how filters interact, what the output represents, or when to prefer this over get_result. The presence of an output schema covers return shapes, but the description fails to provide any operational context.

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 7 parameters have descriptions in the input schema. The tool description adds no parameter information, but since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description is 'List Results', which merely restates the tool name with capitalization. It identifies the verb and resource but adds no specificity about what a 'result' is or how this tool differs from get_result and other list_* siblings. This is a tautology rather than a meaningful purpose statement.

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?

No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_result for a single result, or how to choose among the many filter parameters. The description provides no context, exclusions, or preferred usage scenarios.

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

Deploy Server