RooQuiz

Get respondent

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.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "examineeId": "<examineeId>"
    },
    "name": "get_examinee"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Output 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 }
`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 reference { theme, seed }, when no image was uploaded
`emailVerified`	No	Whether the email has been verified

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 9, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / status

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Account status",
-  "type": [
-    "string",
-    "null"
-  ]
-}

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / avatarPreset / description

Previous value: -"Preset avatar key, when no image was uploaded"New value: +"Preset avatar reference { theme, seed }, when no image was uploaded"

changedOutput schema / properties / avatarPreset / type

Previous value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]

First observedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely non-obvious behavioral detail beyond that: customData is included, and sensitive auth fields are never returned — a redaction guarantee an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the action and resource, then the identifier, then the content guarantee. Nothing is redundant and nothing needs to be inferred from a preamble.

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?

For a one-parameter read tool with a full output schema and explicit annotations, everything an agent needs is present: how to obtain the ID, what the response contains, and what is deliberately excluded. No meaningful gap remains.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the field already documents format and provenance ('examinee business ID (e.g. AB1234567890), as shown in list_examinees'). The description restates that same information rather than adding new meaning such as validation rules or lookup failure behavior, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'View the full detail of one examinee ... by its examineeId'. It also disambiguates the 'examinee/respondent' terminology and distinguishes it from list_examinees by naming that tool as the source of the ID and marking the scope as single-record.

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?

Usage is clearly implied: reach for this when you have an examineeId and need the full record, whereas list_examinees supplies the IDs. There is no explicit when-not or exclusion statement, but the single-record vs. list contrast makes the choice unambiguous in practice.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?