RooQuiz

get_lead

Read-only

View one lead of the current team by leadId: follow-up status, assignee, colour tags, the respondent block, and the next upcoming booking. Optionally include the respondent's submission history (which quizzes they took, with score / level), the team's internal follow-up comments, and the change timeline (status / assignee / tag changes plus submissions). Reference a lead by its leadId and a respondent by examineeId, never by a masked email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`leadId`	Yes	The lead id (the leadId returned by list_leads)
`includeRecords`	No	Include the respondent's submission history (default true)
`includeComments`	No	Include the internal follow-up comments written by team members (default false)
`includeActivities`	No	Include the change timeline: status / assignee / tag changes and submissions (default false)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Colour tag codes on this lead
`leadId`	No	Lead id — address a lead by this, never by a masked email
`status`	No	Follow-up status code (team-defined, see list_lead_settings)
`records`	No	Submission history as { totalDocs, items } (unless includeRecords was false)
`assignee`	No	The member handling this lead as { id, email, username }, or null
`comments`	No	Internal follow-up notes written by team members (only when includeComments)
`createdAt`	No	ISO datetime the lead was created
`firstForm`	No	The quiz that first captured this lead as { id, title }
`activities`	No	Change timeline as { totalDocs, items } (only when includeActivities)
`respondent`	No	The respondent { id, examineeId, email, name, customData, ... }, PII masked
`nextBooking`	No	The next active booking of this respondent, or null
`recordCount`	No	How many times this respondent submitted
`lastRecordAt`	No	ISO datetime of the most recent submission
`firstRecordAt`	No	ISO datetime of the first submission

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, the annotations already establish that this is a safe read operation. The description adds useful behavioral context by specifying current-team scope, optional data inclusions, and the leadId/examineeId reference rule. It does not need to explain return format since an output schema is present.

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 two focused sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, followed by optional include behavior and a defensible reference rule. Every sentence contributes useful information.

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 the required leadId, optional boolean parameters, read-only annotations, and existing output schema, the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly. It covers scope, optional behavior, and a critical lookup guardrail without leaving any obvious missing context.

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 leadId and the three inclusion flags. The description adds context around those flags and reinforces the leadId naming convention, but it does not provide significantly more parameter-level meaning than the input schema itself.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the action ('view one lead') and the resource ('by leadId'), and it enumerates the specific data returned: follow-up status, assignee, colour tags, respondent block, and next upcoming booking. It does not explicitly name sibling tools like get_examinee or list_leads, so sibling differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.

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 usage context: retrieving a single lead of the current team by leadId, with control over optional inclusions such as submission history, comments, and activity timeline. It also offers the practical guardrail that respondents are referenced by examineeId and never by masked email. It stops short of 5 because it does not explicitly list alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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?