RooQuiz

move_question

Move an existing item (question, page break or display block) to a specific position by code. Choose either after or before, referencing another field's code. Move to the front: before references the current first field's code. Move to the end: after references the current last field's code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`code`	Yes	The field code to move (a question, a Breaker or a display block)
`after`	No	Move after this code; choose either after or before
`before`	No	Move before this code; choose either after or before
`formId`	Yes	form ID

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`to`	No	0-based index after the move
`code`	No	The question that was moved
`from`	No	0-based index before the move
`formId`	No	The form that was edited
`changed`	No	false when the question already sat at the target position
`position`	No	Current index — returned instead of from/to when no move was needed
`questionCount`	No	Total question / page-break count

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive; the description adds the nuance that to move to the front or end you must reference the current first/last field's code. It discloses the requirement to reference existing codes and the positional behavior, which goes beyond the 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?

Three sentences with minimal redundancy. It leads with the purpose, then explains the mechanism, and finishes with the front/end special cases. Each sentence earns its place, though it could combine the front/end guidance more tightly.

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 high schema coverage and existing output schema, the description covers all essential mechanics: what to move, how to specify position, and how to handle front/end cases. Nothing an agent needs to call this tool correctly 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 a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds meaning by clarifying that 'after' and 'before' are mutually exclusive ('choose either'), and by explaining how to achieve front/end moves using current boundary codes—details not present in the schema.

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 names a specific action ('Move'), a specific resource ('existing item (question, page break or display block)'), and explains the positional mechanics with 'after' and 'before'. It clearly separates this from sibling add/delete/update tools by focusing on repositioning.

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 implicitly defines when to use it (to change an item's position) and gives concrete instructions for both relative moves and front/end placement. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the tool's purpose is self-evident given the sibling set, so an agent can correctly select it.

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?