RooQuiz

get_examinee

Read-only

View the full detail of one examinee (a.k.a. respondent) in the current team by its examineeId (the business ID shown in list_examinees, e.g. AB1234567890), including customData. Sensitive auth fields are never returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`examineeId`	Yes	The examinee business ID (e.g. AB1234567890), as shown in list_examinees

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Masked name (J*n)
`email`	No	Masked email (j***g@example.com); never pass it back as an argument
`avatar`	No	Uploaded avatar as { id, url }
`status`	No	Account status
`tenant`	No	Team (tenant) the respondent belongs to
`createdAt`	No	ISO datetime of first sign-up
`updatedAt`	No	ISO datetime of the last change
`customData`	No	Team-defined custom fields; phone-typed values come back masked
`examineeId`	No	Business ID of the respondent (e.g. AB1234567890) — use it to address them
`avatarPreset`	No	Preset avatar key, when no image was uploaded
`emailVerified`	No	Whether the email has been verified

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses useful behavioral context beyond annotations: it says customData is included and that sensitive auth fields are never returned. These are meaningful runtime guarantees that help the agent interpret results and set expectations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, adds the key identifying constraint, and closes with the important security behavior. There is no wasted language.

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?

Given this is a simple fetch-by-ID tool with only one required parameter, an output schema, and helpful annotations, the description is complete. It covers scope, identifier provenance, response contents, and the non-return of sensitive fields, so nothing essential is missing.

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 schema already documents the parameter at 100% coverage, including the business ID example. The description reinforces that the ID is from list_examinees and gives an example, but adds little new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('View') and resource ('full detail of one examinee'), with a clear scope ('in the current team') and the exact identifier to use. It also distinguishes itself from list_examinees by clarifying it returns full detail rather than a summary list.

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 implies when to use this tool: when a caller needs full examinee detail or customData rather than just the identifier list. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the contrast with list_examinees and the single-ID focus provide adequate usage context.

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?