ClassQuill MCP server

list_session_feedback

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch student feedback for tutoring sessions, filterable by tutor, anonymity, and public visibility.

Instructions

List Session Feedback

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Records per page (default 20, max 100)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset
`tutor_id`	No	Filter by tutor user UUID
`anonymize`	No	Return reviewer initials instead of full names
`public_only`	No	Only feedback the author made public

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

C2.7/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

The description adds no behavioral context beyond what the annotations already state. The readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints are present in annotations, but the description itself does not explain filtering behavior, output shape, or any side effects.

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 and front-loaded, but it is under-specified: it essentially restates the tool name and provides no additional useful content. This is under-specification rather than effective conciseness.

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 output schema cover the mechanics, but the description lacks the context needed to decide when this tool is appropriate among dozens of sibling list tools. It does not explain what session feedback represents, how it relates to tutor reviews, or when filters should be used.

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 the parameters are already well documented. The description adds no extra meaning, but it does not need to because the schema already explains each parameter's purpose.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it lists session feedback. However, it does not differentiate this from nearby sibling tools such as list_tutor_reviews or list_sessions, so it is clear but not distinct.

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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of typical scenarios, exclusions, or how session feedback differs from related list operations.

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

Deploy Server