Riddle

questionBank_deleteItem

Destructive

Deletes one item from a question bank; does not affect the rest of the bank. If the item was never published, it is gone immediately and for good. If it WAS published, it instead only disappears from the draft - questionBank_getItems stops listing it right away, but a QuestionBank block on a live Riddle keeps drawing it from its last published content, exactly as if nothing happened, until the next questionBank_publish actually purges it. questionBank_discardChanges before that publish undoes the delete entirely, restoring the item to questionBank_getItems. "hasChanges" in the response says whether the bank now has unpublished changes to publish - true for a published item's pending delete. Rejected for a public template id, see questionBank_templateList.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`questionBankId`	Yes	The ID of the question bank the item belongs to.
`questionBankItemId`	Yes	The ID of the item to delete.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the destructiveHint annotation, detailing the nuanced behavior for published vs. unpublished items, the pending state, the effect on live QuestionBank blocks, the undo via questionBank_discardChanges, and the hasChanges status. It also notes the rejection for public template IDs. This is exceptionally transparent.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is detailed but front-loads the main purpose and then methodically explains the behavioral nuances. It is somewhat lengthy, but given the complexity of the deletion semantics, every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise, but it is well-structured and efficient for the level of detail needed.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given the tool's complexity, the description covers all critical aspects: the difference between published and unpublished deletions, the impact on live content, the pending state, the discardChanges reversal, the hasChanges response field, and the constraint on public templates. It even points to a sibling tool for more info. No output schema exists, so the description effectively substitutes for it.

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 already fully describes both parameters (questionBankId and questionBankItemId) with clear descriptions, so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics; it only explains the consequences of deletion on the item, which is not parameter-specific. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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: 'Deletes one item from a question bank' and distinguishes it from deleting the entire bank ('does not affect the rest of the bank'). This is specific and differentiates from the sibling tool questionBank_delete.

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?

The description provides clear context on when to use this tool (for deleting an item from a question bank) and includes important constraints like rejection for public template IDs. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast with alternatives like questionBank_delete for whole-bank deletion, so usage guidance is largely implicit.

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

All Riddle 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

A4.1/5.0

Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, unique purpose. The riddle_builder_* variants are distinct by Riddle type, questionBank_* and riddleTemplate_* cover separate objects, and stats_* differ by scope. No two tools appear to perform the same function.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is largely consistent with domain prefixes (riddle_, questionBank_, riddleTemplate_, stats_, project_, palette_, reference_). Minor deviations like riddle_account_list vs. riddle_list and whoami (no prefix) and riddle_get_embed_code vs. riddle_qr_code slightly break the pattern, but overall it is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 62 tools, the server is far beyond the typical 3-15 well-scoped range. While each tool is functional and the breadth reflects the platform's complexity, the sheer number makes it heavy and increases the cognitive load for an agent, suggesting over-granularity.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle: create (builder variants), read (get/list), update (builder_update, rename), delete, publish/unpublish, tagging, templates, question banks, stats, projects, palettes, and reference documentation. No obvious domain operation is missing.

Resources

Need Help?