Riddle Quiz Maker

questionBank_updateItem

Idempotent

Replaces the content of an existing question bank item entirely - blockType, category, difficulty and columns all have to be sent, even the ones that are not changing. blockType is immutable: it must equal the item's current one, a different value is rejected with an error rather than changing the item's type - an item that should be a different blockType has to be deleted and re-added instead. Changes the item's draft; call questionBank_publish to make the change visible to a QuestionBank block. Rejected for a public template id, see questionBank_templateList.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`columns`	Yes	The question content, as {columnName: [values]} - the same shape questionBank_addItem takes, with the columns questionBank_blockTypeColumns lists for this riddleType and blockType (an unknown column name is rejected, naming the column it did not recognise and listing the valid ones). Replaces the item's content entirely, it is not a partial merge. The values questionBank_getItems returns can go straight back in, {"id": .., "value": ..} objects included: keeping their ids is what makes this an edit of the existing values rather than a fresh set.
`category`	Yes	The item's category.
`blockType`	Yes	The item's block type. Must be exactly its current blockType (questionBank_getItems returns it): it cannot be changed after creation, a different value is rejected. Send it back unchanged - required despite never differing.
`difficulty`	Yes	The item's difficulty, 1-10.
`questionBankId`	Yes	The ID of the question bank the item belongs to.
`questionBankItemId`	Yes	The ID of the item to update, as returned by questionBank_addItem/questionBank_getItems.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the idempotentHint annotation, the description reveals important behaviors: the operation is a full replacement not a merge, blockType is immutable and rejected if changed, the change only affects the draft until published, and public template IDs are rejected. These are statements an agent needs, and the description fully supplies them.

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 text is a dense, single-paragraph explanation with no irrelevant filler. Each sentence adds a distinct point. It is a little long and re-mentions the blockType immutability that also appears in the schema parameter docs, but the extra detail about delete-and-re-add justifies the existence. Overall well structured and front-loaded.

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?

The final definition covers the query premises (immutability, full content replacement), the post-conditions (draft change, publish required), and the exception cases (public template rejection). Given the absence of an output schema, the description is complete and gives an agent all the information needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides high per-parameter coverage (100%), so the description's job is lighter. It adds extra semantics by stating 'even the ones that are not changing' and for columns: 'Replaces the item's content entirely, it is not a partial merge', plus the ID preservation details. This is meaningful added value beyond the raw schema.

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 opens with 'Replaces the content of an existing question bank item entirely', a specific verb-resource pair. It also distinguishes the tool through immutability and draft semantics, making it clear that this is an edit operation on existing items and not a create or read operation.

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?

It explicitly says all fields must be sent even unchanged, that calling questionBank_publish afterwards is required, and that public template IDs are rejected with a pointer to questionBank_templateList. It does not explicitly compare to questionBank_addItem, but the replace-existing-item framing covers the core when-to-use case.

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

All Riddle Quiz Maker 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

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

Need Help?