RooQuiz

invite_member

Invite someone to the active team (tenant) by email. Sends an invitation email with a join link and returns that link. Only the team owner or an admin can invite; the call is rejected for other roles. role defaults to "member" and may be "viewer" (read-only) or "admin". You cannot invite someone as the owner. Fails if the email is already a member or already has a pending invite, or if the team has hit its member limit. Operates on the team this token currently targets — use list_my_tenants / switch_active_tenant to change teams first.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`role`	No	Role to grant. Defaults to "member": "viewer" is read-only, "admin" manages the whole team. Cannot be "owner".
`email`	Yes	Email address of the person to invite.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`role`	No	Role granted by the invite
`email`	No	Address the invite was sent to
`inviteUrl`	No	The invite link that was emailed — you may relay it to the user
`inviteToken`	No	Token embedded in the invite link
`membershipId`	No	The created membership record
`isUserRegistered`	No	Whether that address already had a RooQuiz account

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations indicate this is a write operation but the description goes further by disclosing that an email is sent, that a join link is returned, and that the call is rejected for non-admin roles. It also clarifies active-tenant scoping and specific failure modes, adding substantial context beyond the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then layers permission, role defaults, failure conditions, and tenant-scoping guidance. Every sentence carries distinct operational value, and nothing is redundant.

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 description covers the essential context: target scope, required permissions, role constraints, side effects, return value, and common failure cases. An output schema exists, so return-value details need not be fully spelled out.

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 schema already documents both parameters, including the role enum semantics and default. The description repeats much of this information rather than adding new parameter-level meaning, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate even though the tool context is rich.

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 states a specific verb and resource: invite someone to the active team by email. It also names the key outcome, sending an invitation and returning a join link, which distinguishes it from unrelated sibling tools. No ambiguity remains about what operation the tool performs.

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?

The description explicitly states the permission model, role defaults, and failure conditions, and it tells the caller to use list_my_tenants/switch_active_tenant if a different team should be targeted. This provides clear when-to-use and how-to-prepare 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

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?