RooQuiz

assign_leads

Assign one or more leads of the current team to a member, or clear the assignee. Pass every lead id in a single call (up to 50) — do not loop one call per lead. The assignee must be an active non-viewer member (see list_lead_settings.assignableMembers); pass "me" for yourself, or omit / null to unassign. Each change is recorded on the lead's timeline, and the assignee gets one aggregated notification for the whole batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`leadIds`	Yes	The lead ids to assign, max 50 per call
`assigneeId`	No	The member userId to assign to, or "me" for the current token's own user. Omit (or pass null) to clear the assignee.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	How many leads were changed
`items`	No	Per-lead result
`assigneeId`	No	The member they were assigned to, or null when cleared

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses notable side effects: 'me' or null to unassign, timeline recording for each change, and one aggregated notification for the whole batch. It also sets the member eligibility constraint, which is behavioral context the annotations don't convey.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then packs behavioral details into a compact statement. It's slightly longer than necessary but every sentence adds distinct value, with no redundancy or filler.

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 a complete schema, annotations consistently marking mutation/non-destruction, and an output schema present, the description supplies the remaining essential context: batching limits, assignee viability requirement, and side effects. It gives an agent enough information to call the tool correctly in one pass.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including max 50 and 'me' semantics. The description adds extra meaning by clarifying that omitting or passing null unassigns, and by explaining the batching constraint directly in the tool's workflow rather than only in the 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 states a specific verb ('assign') and resource ('leads') and clarifies the dual behavior: assign to a member or clear the assignee. It clearly distinguishes from siblings like update_lead by focusing on the assignment operation and batching rules.

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 gives actionable usage guidance: pass all lead ids in a single call up to 50, don't loop per lead, and the assignee must be an active non-viewer member. It references list_lead_settings for valid assignees, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when not to use it.

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

All RooQuiz 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

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools map to a distinct resource and action, and the descriptions actively disambiguate similar operations (e.g., get_form vs get_form_share_info vs get_form_stats). The main potential confusion is between list_records and list_leads and between get_record and get_lead, since both describe leads from slightly different angles.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun convention, with resources like form, question, lead, booking, examinee, translation, and tenant parallel across actions. The few non-CRUD verbs like prepare_/finalize_, duplicate_, and reschedule_ still fit the same uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

48 tools is well beyond the 3–15 ideal and even past the 25+ threshold, making the tool surface heavy for an agent to navigate. The broad platform scope explains some of the size, but the count still risks overwhelming context and increasing misselection.

Completeness4/5

The server covers form lifecycle, question editing, translations, CRM leads, examinees, records, bookings, team/tenant operations, image uploads, templates, and analytics extremely well. Minor gaps remain—such as no lead/record deletion, no member removal or role updates, and limited booking-settings management—but most workflows can be completed with the existing tools.

Resources

Need Help?