RooQuiz

list_records

Read-only

List submission records (leads) of the current team, newest first. Each item includes the examinee (name / email / customData if captured), the submitted answers, UTM metadata and a compact report result (status / score / level / outcome). Optionally filter by form, report status, and submitted-at range. Reference a respondent by examineeId, never by a masked email; email addresses and phone numbers written into the answers come back masked too. Use get_record for one record's full detail.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	Page number (1-based), default 1
`limit`	No	Items per page, default 20, max 100
`since`	No	Only records submitted on/after this ISO datetime, optional
`until`	No	Only records submitted on/before this ISO datetime, optional
`formId`	No	Filter by form UUID, optional
`status`	No	Filter by report generation status, optional

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`page`	No	1-based page returned
`items`	No	The page of submissions (newest first)
`limit`	No	Page size actually used
`totalDocs`	No	Total submissions matching the filter

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/destructive annotations, it discloses meaningful behavioral traits: newest-first ordering, the compact report shape, team-level scoping, automatic masking of emails and phone numbers, and the instruction to reference respondents by examineeId because masks are not stable identifiers. This is genuinely useful context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 information-dense yet compact: one sentence for the core behavior, one for item shape, one for optional filters, and one safety/alternatives tip. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important information is at the front.

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 readOnly annotations, full input-schema coverage, and the presence of an output schema, this description leaves very little unresolved. It explains item contents, filtering, masking constraints, and routes to get_record, so an agent can confidently select and call the tool.

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?

The schema already documents all 6 parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description does add a concise grouping of the optional filters (form, report status, submitted-at range), but it mostly restates what the parameter descriptions already say rather than introducing new semantic meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb-resource combination: "List submission records (leads) of the current team, newest first." It enumerates what each item includes and explicitly distinguishes itself from get_record, making the tool's scope clear even among many list_* siblings.

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 clear context on optional filters and on how to reference respondents safely, and it explicitly points to get_record when full detail is needed. It does not explicitly contrast this endpoint with list_leads or list_examinees, but the behavior description and mention of report results make the intended use clear.

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?