Skip to main content
Glama

questionBank_discardChanges

Destructive

Discards every unpublished change of a question bank, resetting all of its items back to their last published state. An item that was never published (added after the last questionBank_publish) is unaffected - it has no published state to reset to. A questionBank_deleteItem of an already-published item is undone by this too - the item returns to questionBank_getItems as if it had never been deleted, since its published content never left. Irreversible. Rejected for a public template id, see questionBank_templateList.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
questionBankIdYesThe ID of the question bank to discard changes on.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false), the description reveals critical behaviors: unaffected never-published items, reversal of deleteItem, and irreversibility. These add substantial context the agent could not infer from annotations alone.

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 efficiently structured: the main action is front-loaded, followed by edge cases and caveats. Each sentence earns its place, providing necessary nuance without fluff.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's behavior, including edge cases (unpublished items, deleteItem reversal), irreversibility, and rejection for public templates. It is complete for a destructive reset operation.

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 covers 100% of the single parameter (questionBankId) with a clear description. The tool description doesn't add parameter-specific syntax or edge cases for the ID, but the schema is sufficient, so a baseline 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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Discards every unpublished change of a question bank, resetting all of its items back to their last published state.' It uses a specific verb (discards) and resource (question bank), distinguishing it from siblings like questionBank_publish and 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 gives clear context for when to use: to undo unpublished changes. It also provides an explicit exclusion ('Rejected for a public template id') and points to a related tool (questionBank_templateList). However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives like questionBank_publish or when not to use compared to other edits.

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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools are largely distinct by name and detailed descriptions, with clear prefixes (riddle_builder_*, questionBank_*, stats_*). Some potential confusion exists among the stats tools (stats_fetch vs stats_overview_fetch vs breakdowns) but descriptions clarify their different scopes. Overall, an agent can usually pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming follows a predictable prefix+verb pattern within each domain (e.g., riddle_builder_quiz, riddle_builder_poll; riddle_get, riddle_publish). Minor inconsistencies exist, like the camelCase 'questionBank' and 'riddleTemplate' prefixes vs snake_case elsewhere, and 'stats_overview_fetch' ordering, but these are not chaotic and remain readable.

Tool Count1/5

With 62 tools, this far exceeds the recommended 3-15 range and even the 25+ threshold. While the server covers a broad domain, the extreme number overwhelms and makes tool selection harder, fitting the 'extreme mismatch' criterion for 50+ tools.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is exceptionally comprehensive, covering creation, reading, updating, deleting, publishing, unpublishing, moving, tagging, template management, question banks, palettes, and various stats breakdowns. There are no obvious gaps in the lifecycle of managing interactive content, and all apparent operations are supported.

Resources