RooQuiz

get_form_share_info

Read-only

Everything needed to put a form of the current team in front of an audience: the public answer link (also per language version), the team's custom domain and whether it is actually serving, ready-to-paste embed snippets in three modes (inline / popup / iframe), and the current delivery settings so you can tell whether the form will even accept responses. Pass utmSource to get every link and snippet tagged for one channel. Use this to answer "give me the link / the embed code" and to sanity-check a launch; change the switches with update_form_settings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`formId`	Yes	The form UUID
`utmSource`	No	Optional channel tag applied to the links and snippets (letters, digits, _ and - only, max 64). Omitted or invalid = no tag, in which case the embed script forwards whatever utm_* the host page already has.
`iframeHeight`	No	Optional pixel height for the iframe snippet, default 600
`popupButtonText`	No	Optional label for the popup-mode button; empty uses the built-in default

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No	Custom path under the custom domain; only shapes shareUrl while that domain is serving
`embed`	No	Copy-paste embed snippets { inline, popup, iframe }; null when the form has no public token
`title`	No	Form title
`formId`	No	The form
`delivery`	No	Delivery state: { isActive, submissionAccess, reportGateRequireCode, timeLimit, sharing, answerSheet, booking, gaTrackingId, sharedWithAll }; get_form_share_info adds the team-level examineeSignupDisabled (respondent self-signup off = a login-gated quiz turns away anyone not on the roster)
`shareUrl`	No	The link to hand out (custom domain when one is serving)
`publicToken`	No	Token behind the public answer link
`customDomain`	No	Custom-domain state { domain, status, serving, plan }
`languageUrls`	No	One link per language version
`defaultShareUrl`	No	The same quiz on the default domain — always works

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that. It adds useful context: the tool reflects current team scope, reports whether the custom domain is actually serving, and indicates whether the form will accept responses. This goes beyond the structured annotations without contradicting them.

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 dense but not bloated. It front-loads the main output and then lists use cases and the sibling alternative. Every clause contributes meaning, and it keeps the agent-oriented guidance in the final sentence.

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 tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the key context an orchestration agent needs: scope of current team, embed modes, custom domain serving status, and delivery-settings sanity checks. Combined with the rich annotations and complete param schema, nothing critical is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the parameter descriptions already carry the load. The description adds value by explaining utmSource's purpose: 'Pass utmSource to get every link and snippet tagged for one channel.' It does not repeat every schema-field detail, which is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a get for form sharing information: public answer links, custom domain serving status, embed snippets in three modes, and delivery settings. It uses a specific verb/resource combination and differentiates itself from siblings by explicitly pointing to update_form_settings for changing switches.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives explicit use cases: 'Use this to answer "give me the link / the embed code" and to sanity-check a launch; change the switches with update_form_settings.' This tells an agent when to use this tool and when to prefer the sibling instead.

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?