RooQuiz

update_booking_status

Close out a confirmed booking of the current team: mark it completed, mark the attendee as a no-show, or cancel it. Only works on a booking whose status is scheduled; completed / no_show additionally require the meeting to have already started. Cancelling notifies the attendee by email and fires the booking.cancelled integration event; completed / no_show are internal bookkeeping and do not contact the attendee. To handle a pending request use review_booking instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	completed = the meeting happened, no_show = the attendee did not turn up, cancelled = call it off and notify them
`bookingId`	Yes	The booking id (the bookingId returned by list_bookings)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	completed / no_show / cancelled
`bookingId`	No	The booking that was closed out
`cancelledAt`	No	ISO datetime, set when the booking was cancelled

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses important behavioral side effects beyond annotations: cancellation notifies the attendee by email and fires an integration event, while completed/no_show do not contact the attendee. It also explains the difference between status transitions. This adds significant context not available in the annotations alone.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically adds preconditions, side effects, and an alternative. It is a bit longer than minimal, but every sentence is necessary and adds distinct value.

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 presence of an output schema and the annotations, the description provides everything an agent needs: valid statuses, eligibility conditions, side effects, and sibling routing. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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?

Although the schema already covers all parameters (100%) and defines enum values, the description adds clear behavioral nuances for each status (e.g., cancellation triggers notification, completed/no_show are internal). It enriches the schema's plain definitions with operational 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 states a specific verb ('close out') and the resource ('a confirmed booking of the current team'), then enumerates the exact acceptable outcomes. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling review_booking by explicitly naming the tool for pending requests.

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 clearly specifies the precondition: only works on bookings with status 'scheduled', and adds time-based requirements for completed/no_show. It also gives an explicit exclusion: 'To handle a pending request use review_booking instead'.

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?