RooQuiz

get_active_tenant

Read-only

Return the team (tenant) this token is currently operating against. All write tools default to this team. Also reports examineeSignupDisabled: when true this team has switched respondent self-signup off, so only respondents already on its roster can sign in — every quiz that asks for a login (submissionAccess examinee_only, or login_to_view_report at the report gate) turns away anyone new. Check it before blaming a quiz for "nobody can submit".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Team id
`name`	No	Team name
`role`	No	Your role in this team
`slug`	No	Team slug
`examineeSignupDisabled`	No	true = respondent self-signup is off for this team, so any quiz that asks for a login turns away respondents who are not on the roster yet

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only behavior, so the description adds valuable context beyond them: it reveals the additional `examineeSignupDisabled` field and explains why it matters for quizzes requiring login. This is useful behavioral insight that an agent would otherwise not infer from the schema alone.

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 slightly longer than the most minimal needed, but each clause carries meaning, including the nuanced exam-signup explanation. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and elaborates in a way that earns its length.

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 zero parameters and an output schema, the only important context an agent needs is what the active tenant means and how to interpret the notable field. The description covers the full usage scenario, including the 'nobody can submit' pitfall, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 tool has no parameters, so the description rightly spends no time on them. The baseline is 4 since there is no parameter semantics gap to compensate for; the description's focus on the return fields is the appropriate semantic equivalent.

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 specifies a clear verb ('Return') and resource ('team (tenant) this token is currently operating against') while also clarifying the relevant scope: active tenant, as opposed to a list of all tenants or switching. The added detail about write tools defaulting to this team further disambiguates this from sibling getters.

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 clearly tells when to check the active tenant ('Check it before blaming a quiz for "nobody can submit"') and explains the field's implications for signup behavior. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, but the intent is unambiguous given the context and sibling tools.

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?