RooQuiz

create_form_translation

Add a language version (translation) to a form. Clones the source text as the initial draft and returns it so you can translate right away: edit the human-readable text in place, keep every code identical to the source, then save with update_form_translation. The language must differ from the form's primary language, and there is at most one translation per language (see list_form_translations).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`formId`	Yes	The source form UUID
`language`	Yes	Target language for the new version. Must differ from the form's primary language.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cloned`	No	The cloned source draft — translate the text in place, keep every code, then save
`formId`	No	The source form
`language`	No	Language of the new version
`shareUrl`	No	Public link for this language (source token + ?lang=)
`translationId`	No	The new translation id

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses key behaviors: the source text is cloned into the new version, the result is returned for immediate translation, and code fields must stay identical to the source. This gives the agent a clear model of what happens on invocation.

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 compact and front-loaded: the main action and outcome are in the first sentence, followed by essential workflow constraints in the second. No filler or redundant restatement.

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 description covers the purpose, constraints, next steps, and relationship to sibling tools. With an output schema present and annotations providing safety cues, nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 documents both formId and language with 100% coverage. The description adds contextual meaning (language must differ, translation is per-language) but does not introduce new parameter details beyond 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 clearly states the action: add a language version (translation) to a form. It also distinguishes itself from related siblings like update_form_translation and list_form_translations by explaining the cloning and post-save workflow.

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 explicit context: language must differ from primary, at most one translation per language, and the workflow of editing then calling update_form_translation. It also points to list_form_translations for checking existing translations. It could be more explicit about when not to use this tool, but the constraints strongly imply that.

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?