parentsquare-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_parents

Retrieve a school's complete parent roster with names, emails, phones, and linked students. Use returned user IDs to edit parents or link guardians to students.

Instructions

List guardians/parents on a school's admin roster (user_id, name, email, phone, linked students).

Returns the full parent roster in one call. Use the user_id from results in edit_parent and link_guardian_to_student.

Args: school_id: School ID (from list_schools) name_contains: Optional case-insensitive substring filter on guardian name student_name_contains: Optional case-insensitive substring filter on the guardian's linked student names

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`school_id`	Yes
`name_contains`	No
`student_name_contains`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.0Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It states that the tool returns the full parent roster in one call and supports substring filters, but it does not explicitly mention read-only behavior, ordering, pagination, or invalid-input behavior. This is adequate but has gaps.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the purpose, followed by the key return behavior and downstream usage, then a clean Args list. Every line earns its place.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The description covers the required parameter, optional filters, and downstream user_id usage, while the output schema covers return fields. It could note whether filters combine or how results are ordered, but it is sufficient for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description compensates by explaining school_id's source, name_contains as a case-insensitive substring filter, and student_name_contains as a filter on linked student names.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description explicitly names the verb and resource: listing guardians/parents on a school's admin roster, and it enumerates the returned fields. This clearly separates it from sibling list tools like list_students and list_staff.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives clear context for when to use the tool (get the full parent roster in one call) and downstream usage of the returned user_id. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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