RooQuiz

Get record

get_record

Read-only

View the full detail of one submission record (lead) in the current team by its record id (the id field returned by list_records), including the examinee, the submitted answers, UTM metadata and the business report result (overall / dimensions / outcome / AI report / AI evaluation), with internal diagnostics omitted and quoted contacts masked. Answers are returned as the respondent wrote them, except that any email address or phone number inside them comes back masked.

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": {
      "recordId": "<recordId>"
    },
    "name": "get_record"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recordId`	Yes	The record id (the `id` returned by list_records)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Record id — address a submission by this
`data`	No	The submitted answers keyed by question code, as typed by the respondent — with any email address or phone number inside them masked
`formId`	No	The quiz this submission belongs to
`examinee`	No	The respondent { id, examineeId, email, name, customData }, PII masked
`metadata`	No	Channel attribution { utmSource, utmMedium, utmCampaign, utmTerm, utmContent, referrer, params } — params holds the URL parameters (hidden fields) declared on the quiz
`reportUrl`	No	Public report page URL for this submission
`updatedAt`	No	ISO datetime of the last change
`shareToken`	No	Token that makes this single report page shareable
`submittedAt`	No	ISO datetime of submission
`reportResult`	No	The sanitized report { status, errorCode, overallAnalysis, dimensionAnalysis, outcome, aiReport, aiEvaluation }; excludes internal diagnostics
`serialNumber`	No	Per-form sequence number of the submission

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / metadata / description

Previous value: -"Channel attribution { utmSource, utmMedium, utmCampaign, utmTerm, utmContent, referrer }"New value: +"Channel attribution { utmSource, utmMedium, utmCampaign, utmTerm, utmContent, referrer, params } — params holds the URL parameters (hidden fields) declared on the quiz"

Changed1 schema field changedNov 3, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / reportResult / description

Previous value: -"The complete frozen report { status, overallAnalysis, dimensionAnalysis, outcome, aiEvaluation }"New value: +"The sanitized report { status, errorCode, overallAnalysis, dimensionAnalysis, outcome, aiReport, aiEvaluation }; excludes internal diagnostics"

Changed1 schema field changedOct 13, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / reportResult / description

Previous value: -"The complete frozen report { status, overallAnalysis, dimensionAnalysis, outcome, aiEvaluation, aiSuggestion }"New value: +"The complete frozen report { status, overallAnalysis, dimensionAnalysis, outcome, aiEvaluation }"

First observedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare it as a safe, closed-world read; the description goes well beyond that by disclosing that internal diagnostics are omitted and that quoted contacts plus any email/phone embedded in answers are masked, while answers are otherwise verbatim. These are non-obvious output-shaping behaviors an agent could not infer from readOnlyHint/destructiveHint and that affect how it should interpret results.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and scope, with no filler or restatement of the name/title. The second sentence is dense with nested parentheticals and an exception clause ("except that any email address or phone number..."), which is informative but slightly harder to parse than the first.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is not strictly required, yet the description still tells the agent what sections come back (overall / dimensions / outcome / AI report / AI evaluation) and which fields are suppressed or masked. For a single-parameter, read-only tool at full schema coverage, nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret it correctly 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?

Schema coverage is 100% and the single parameter's schema text ("The record id (the `id` returned by list_records)") is essentially repeated in the description, so little meaning is added. The only marginal addition is the "in the current team" scoping hint, which implies ids are team-scoped and therefore only valid under the active tenant.

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 submission record (lead)") and scopes it ("in the current team by its record id"). It also disambiguates from the listing sibling by pointing at the `id` field returned by list_records, and it enumerates the payload (examinee, answers, UTM metadata, report result), so an agent can tell it apart from get_lead, get_examinee, or list_records without opening a schema.

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 prerequisite for calling it is explicit: the recordId must be the `id` from list_records, which establishes the intended workflow. There is no explicit exclusion clause naming when to prefer get_lead/get_examinee instead, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not guidance.

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?