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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations, the description discloses critical behaviors: maxNumberOfQuestions is ignored, counts can exceed actual draw sizes, omitted caps are computed as min(5, max(1, count)), and publish is only hard-blocked when every criterion matches zero. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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 long but front-loaded with the main purpose and packed with necessary caveats. Every sentence adds value, though the single dense paragraph requires careful reading; a bit more structural separation would improve it.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by stating the return shape ({blockType, category, count}), the count semantics, and edge cases around publishing. It gives enough context for an agent to interpret results correctly without additional documentation.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the input schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds domain context about criteria and counts but does not add param-specific meaning beyond what the schema already provides, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Counts, per criterion of a QuestionBank block, how many published items in the bank currently match it.' It clearly distinguishes itself from a real draw preview and from item-retrieval tools, making its unique counting purpose obvious.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use this to answer "does this criterion match anything..."') and when not to ('not "here is what the Riddle will show"'). It also explains the silent-publish edge case, but it does not name a specific sibling tool as an alternative.

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