Skip to main content
Glama

questionBank_riddleBlockItems

Read-onlyIdempotent

Counts, per criterion of a QuestionBank block, how many published items in the bank currently match it - this is a count preview, NOT a preview of the items a real draw would pick. For each questionBankCriteria entry it returns {blockType, category, count}, where count is every published item matching that criterion's category, difficultyRange and blockType; no items are drawn, selected or returned, and maxNumberOfQuestions is deliberately ignored, so count can be (and often is) higher than what the block will actually show once published - an actual draw caps at maxNumberOfQuestions (a positive integer when the criterion sets it; a criterion that omitted it had a cap written in for it at build time as min(5, max(1, this same matching count)), so it is never uncapped). Use this to answer "does this criterion match anything, and roughly how much inventory is there", not "here is what the Riddle will show" - publish is only hard-blocked (QUESTION_BANK_NO_ITEMS_MATCH) when EVERY criterion of EVERY QuestionBank block in the Riddle matches zero published items; a criterion that matches too few items, or none, while another criterion still matches something, publishes silently with no warning, so this is how to find that out yourself before publishing.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
blockIdYesThe id of the QuestionBank block within that Riddle, as returned by riddle_get.
riddleUUIDYesThe UUID of the Riddle that contains the QuestionBank block.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly and idempotent annotations, the description discloses that no items are drawn or returned, maxNumberOfQuestions is intentionally ignored, counts can exceed actual draw size, and cap behavior is explained. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction.

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 a dense single paragraph but front-loads the core purpose and then explains caveats. It is longer than average but every sentence conveys important nuance; slight restructuring would make it more readable, but it is not wasteful.

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 and lack of output schema, the description fully covers the return shape, the count semantics, the cap behavior, and publish implications. An agent can confidently decide when to invoke it and interpret its response without additional 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?

The input schema already fully documents both parameters with clear descriptions and 100% coverage. The tool description adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 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 states the tool counts published items per QuestionBank criterion using a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from item-preview tools by emphasizing it is a count preview, not an actual draw preview.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use it: to determine if a criterion matches anything and how much inventory exists. It also contrasts with 'here is what the Riddle will show' and explains publish blocking behavior, giving clear usage boundaries.

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

Try in Browser

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