RooQuiz

Get respondent

get_examinee

Read-only

View the full detail of one examinee (a.k.a. respondent) in the current team by its examineeId (the business ID shown in list_examinees, e.g. AB1234567890), including customData. Sensitive auth fields are never returned.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`examineeId`	Yes	The examinee business ID (e.g. AB1234567890), as shown in list_examinees

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 reference { theme, seed }, when no image was uploaded
`emailVerified`	No	Whether the email has been verified

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedSep 9, 2026

changedOutput schema / properties / avatarPreset / description

Previous value: -"Preset avatar key, when no image was uploaded"New value: +"Preset avatar reference { theme, seed }, when no image was uploaded"

changedOutput schema / properties / avatarPreset / type

Previous value: -[
-  "string",
-  "null"
-]New value: +[
+  "object",
+  "null"
+]

First observedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context by stating that customData is included and that sensitive auth fields are never returned, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core action and parameter are front-loaded, and the additional clarifications (a.k.a. respondent, customData, sensitive fields) each add relevant information without redundancy.

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?

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema and safe annotations. The description covers scope, identity of the parameter, what is returned, and what is intentionally omitted. Nothing essential for calling the tool correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains examineeId as 'The examinee business ID (e.g. AB1234567890), as shown in list_examinees'. The description largely repeats this information, adding only the 'current team' scope, so it does not meaningfully enhance the parameter semantics beyond 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 ('View'), identifies the resource ('one examinee'), and specifies the lookup key ('examineeId'). It also clarifies scope ('in the current team') and content ('including customData'), making it clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_examinees and update_examinee.

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 makes the intended use clear: retrieve full details for a single examinee by business ID, with the additional hint that the ID is the one shown in list_examinees. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or exclusion conditions, so it stops short of a 5, but the context is unambiguous.

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

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?