DeepMark

List Exam Papers

paper_list

Read-onlyIdempotent

List all exam papers with optional filtering

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum number of papers to return (pagination page size).
`offset`	No	Number of papers to skip before returning results (pagination).
`subject`	No	Filter to a single subject.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	Yes
`offset`	Yes
`papers`	Yes
`has_more`	Yes	True when a full page came back — request the next offset.
`returned`	Yes	How many papers this page returned.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

Changed5 schema fields changedAug 23, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / papers / items / properties / created_by / additionalProperties
```
Removed value: -false
```

addedOutput schema / properties / papers / items / properties / created_by / anyOf

Added value: +[
+  {
+    "additionalProperties": false,
+    "properties": {
+      "email": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      },
+      "id": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "name": {
+        "anyOf": [
+          {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          {
+            "type": "null"
+          }
+        ]
+      }
+    },
+    "required": [
+      "id",
+      "name",
+      "email"
+    ],
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "null"
+  }
+]

removedOutput schema / properties / papers / items / properties / created_by / properties

Removed value: -{
-  "email": {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "null"
-      }
-    ]
-  },
-  "id": {
-    "type": "string"
-  },
-  "name": {
-    "anyOf": [
-      {
-        "type": "string"
-      },
-      {
-        "type": "null"
-      }
-    ]
-  }
-}

removedOutput schema / properties / papers / items / properties / created_by / required
```
Removed value: -[
-  "id",
-  "name",
-  "email"
-]
```
removedOutput schema / properties / papers / items / properties / created_by / type
```
Removed value: -"object"
```

First observedJul 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to repeat those. However, the description adds little beyond that—no detail about what is included in the list or constraints like pagination behavior, which could be useful context.

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 a single, direct sentence that communicates the tool's purpose with no unnecessary words. It earns its place without redundant phrasing or over-explanation.

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 is sufficient for a simple list operation, and both input and output schemas provide strong structural context. Minor gaps include not explicitly stating pagination implications, but these are already well documented in the schema.

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?

The input schema has 100% coverage, with descriptions for limit, offset, and subject. The description's 'optional filtering' hints at the subject filter but does not add meaningful meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states the action ('List') and the resource ('exam papers'), and adds scope with 'all' and 'optional filtering'. This effectively differentiates paper_list from siblings like paper_get (single retrieval) and paper_create (creation).

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies this tool is for listing papers with optional filters, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like paper_get or paper_confirm. There are no exclusionary conditions or comparative guidance provided.

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

All DeepMark tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

The tools map well to distinct resources and workflow stages, and the async flows are clearly explained. The main overlap risk is paper_create/paper_confirm and markResult_get/submission_get, where names point at similar actions but the descriptions make the boundaries usable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow the same resource_action snake_case pattern, e.g. paper_get, submission_mark, markScheme_update. markResult_get breaks the pattern slightly by mixing camelCase into an otherwise snake_case set, but the naming stays readable and predictable overall.

Tool Count5/5

Ten tools is a well-scoped size for this domain: paper creation, confirmation, retrieval, question/mark-scheme correction, and submission grading are covered without excess granularity or obvious filler.

Completeness4/5

The main end-to-end workflow—create extraction job, confirm paper, mark submission, poll results—is complete and coherent. Minor gaps exist, such as no paper deletion, no submission listing, and no direct way to fetch a mark scheme separately, but they are not blocking for the core grading loop.

Resources

Need Help?