RooQuiz

get_form_funnel

Read-only

Read the conversion funnel for a form in the current team over the last N days, from the form_sessions telemetry: overall stages (viewed → started → submitted → leadCaptured → reportViewed → ctaClicked → shared), per-channel funnel (by utm_source, with embedded flag), UTM combos, and drop-off points (which question unsubmitted sessions stalled on). Use this to find where respondents drop and improve conversion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`days`	No	Look-back window in days, default 30, max 180
`formId`	Yes	The form UUID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`days`	No	Look-back window actually used
`formId`	No	The form this funnel belongs to
`dropOff`	No	Where unsubmitted sessions gave up
`overall`	No	Stage counts: { viewed, started, submitted, leadCaptured, reportViewed, ctaClicked, shared }
`channels`	No	Funnel split by channel
`utmCombos`	No	Funnel split by UTM combo

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds behavioral context: the data source (form_sessions telemetry), scoping to the current team, the look-back window, and the specific funnel/drop-off reports returned. This goes beyond the annotations and clearly sets expectations.

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 detailed but not padded. It front-loads the core purpose and then enumerates the specific outputs. The funnel stage list and per-channel breakdowns are informative and earn their place, though the sentence is slightly long.

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 rich output schema, high schema parameter coverage, and safety annotations, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It specifies scope, data source, output dimensions, and the intended use case.

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%, so the schema already documents formId and days including default and max/min. The description only reflects the 'last N days' notion without adding new meaning to parameters. This matches the baseline expected when schema carries the semantic load.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Read the conversion funnel for a form in the current team over the last N days'. It then enumerates the exact funnel stages and breakdowns, making it clearly distinct from generic siblings like get_form_stats or get_form.

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 gives a clear intended use: 'Use this to find where respondents drop and understand/improve conversion.' It implies this tool is for conversion analysis rather than general form reading or stats, but it doesn't explicitly exclude alternatives or mention 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?