RooQuiz

assign_leads

Assign one or more leads of the current team to a member, or clear the assignee. Pass every lead id in a single call (up to 50) — do not loop one call per lead. The assignee must be an active non-viewer member (see list_lead_settings.assignableMembers); pass "me" for yourself, or omit / null to unassign. Each change is recorded on the lead's timeline, and the assignee gets one aggregated notification for the whole batch.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`leadIds`	Yes	The lead ids to assign, max 50 per call
`assigneeId`	No	The member userId to assign to, or "me" for the current token's own user. Omit (or pass null) to clear the assignee.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	How many leads were changed
`items`	No	Per-lead result
`assigneeId`	No	The member they were assigned to, or null when cleared

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description explains important behavioral facets beyond annotations: each change is recorded on the lead timeline, the assignee gets one aggregated notification, and omitting/null clears the assignee. This informs the agent of mutation effects without needing to infer them.

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?

Each sentence earns its place: purpose, batching instruction, assignee eligibility, unassign behavior, and side effects. It is compact yet complete and well-organized.

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 two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers all essential call semantics: what to pass, how to unassign, member constraints, and result behavior. No additional context or inference is necessary 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?

The schema already covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions. The description adds meaningful context above that: leads must belong to the current team, the assignee must be an active non-viewer member, and the batch limit is emphasized.

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 operation ('Assign one or more leads of the current team to a member, or clear the assignee'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It is distinct from siblings like set_lead_tags or update_lead.

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?

Gives explicit guidance: pass every lead id in a single call up to 50, do not loop, use 'me' for yourself, and omit/null to unassign. It also states the assignee eligibility requirement clearly.

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 pair a distinct resource with a distinct verb, and the descriptions do a good job of separating related concepts like leads, records, examinees, and bookings. The only real ambiguity is between list_records (submission records, also called leads) and list_leads (CRM leads), plus a mild overlap between update_form and update_form_settings, but careful reading resolves both.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern, using standard verbs like get_, list_, create_, update_, delete_, add_, insert_, move_, and set_. Minor stylistic variation such as add_question vs. insert_question is still predictable and does not hurt usability.

Tool Count2/5

48 tools is a very heavy surface for an MCP server. While each tool appears purposeful, the server spans forms, questions, translations, analytics, leads, bookings, examinees, media, and team administration, making it feel like a full platform API rather than a focused server. Most agents will only ever need a subset of these tools.

Completeness4/5

The core quiz lifecycle is well covered: form creation/editing/deletion/restore/duplicate/translation, question CRUD/move, delivery settings, statistics/funnels, lead CRM, bookings, examinees, media upload, and tenant basics. The main gaps are minor — no member list/remove/role management beyond invite, no media library listing/deletion, and no bulk export of records — but these do not create dead ends in the primary quiz/lead/booking workflows.

Resources

Need Help?