RooQuiz

update_examinee

Destructive

Update an examinee (a.k.a. respondent) in the current team, located by its examineeId (the business ID from list_examinees). Editable: name / status (active|disabled) / customData (validated against the team's examinee field definitions: required / unique / type / regex). email, tenant and examineeId cannot be changed. customData REPLACES the whole object and masked values are rejected: never re-send customData you just read, or you will wipe or corrupt phone fields — only write values the user gave you.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	New examinee name
`status`	No	Enable (active) or disable the examinee
`customData`	No	Custom field values as a code→value map, validated against the team's examineeFields definitions (required / unique / type / regex). The keys are that team's own field codes — get_examinee shows which codes exist, but only send values the user gave you: this replaces the whole customData object, and re-sending a value you read back (phone fields come back masked) wipes or corrupts it.
`examineeId`	Yes	The examinee business ID (e.g. AB1234567890) to update

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Masked name (J*n)
`email`	No	Masked email (j***g@example.com); never pass it back as an argument
`avatar`	No	Uploaded avatar as { id, url }
`status`	No	Account status
`tenant`	No	Team (tenant) the respondent belongs to
`createdAt`	No	ISO datetime of first sign-up
`updatedAt`	No	ISO datetime of the last change
`customData`	No	Team-defined custom fields; phone-typed values come back masked
`examineeId`	No	Business ID of the respondent (e.g. AB1234567890) — use it to address them
`avatarPreset`	No	Preset avatar key, when no image was uploaded
`emailVerified`	No	Whether the email has been verified

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate destructive behavior, but the description goes further by explaining exactly how: customData replaces the whole object, masked values are rejected, and replaying a previously read customData can wipe or corrupt phone fields. This is precisely the kind of behavioral context beyond annotations that an agent needs.

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 dense and front-loaded with the operation and resource, followed by a concise list of editable and immutable fields and a distinct warning. It earns its length, though the customData warning partially repeats the input schema's customData description.

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?

For a destructive mutate operation with a nested customData object, the description provides the essential operational context: identity selection, field editability, validation behavior, and the destructive consequence of echoing masked data. The presence of a full output schema and complete input schema rounds out the tool definition.

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?

The input schema covers 100% of the parameters, so the schema already handles most semantics. The description adds valuable clarification: email, tenant, and examineeId cannot be changed, customData is validated against field definitions, and readonly/masked values must not be re-sent. This is meaningful but partially redundant with 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Update an examinee' and states it operates in the current team, identified by examineeId. It also clarifies what is editable versus immutable, which makes the tool's scope distinct from sibling read/list tools like get_examinee and list_examinees.

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?

It gives a clear prerequisite: the examinee is located by the business ID from list_examinees, and it scopes updates to the current team. It also notes immutable fields. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but for a mutation tool the usage context is established sufficiently.

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?