RooQuiz

get_form_share_info

Read-only

Everything needed to put a form of the current team in front of an audience: the public answer link (also per language version), the team's custom domain and whether it is actually serving, ready-to-paste embed snippets in three modes (inline / popup / iframe), and the current delivery settings so you can tell whether the form will even accept responses. Pass utmSource to get every link and snippet tagged for one channel. Use this to answer "give me the link / the embed code" and to sanity-check a launch; change the switches with update_form_settings.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`formId`	Yes	The form UUID
`utmSource`	No	Optional channel tag applied to the links and snippets (letters, digits, _ and - only, max 64). Omitted or invalid = no tag, in which case the embed script forwards whatever utm_* the host page already has.
`iframeHeight`	No	Optional pixel height for the iframe snippet, default 600
`popupButtonText`	No	Optional label for the popup-mode button; empty uses the built-in default

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`slug`	No	Custom path under the custom domain; only shapes shareUrl while that domain is serving
`embed`	No	Copy-paste embed snippets { inline, popup, iframe }; null when the form has no public token
`title`	No	Form title
`formId`	No	The form
`delivery`	No	Delivery state: { isActive, submissionAccess, reportGateRequireCode, timeLimit, sharing, answerSheet, booking, gaTrackingId, sharedWithAll }; get_form_share_info adds the team-level examineeSignupDisabled (respondent self-signup off = a login-gated quiz turns away anyone not on the roster)
`shareUrl`	No	The link to hand out (custom domain when one is serving)
`publicToken`	No	Token behind the public answer link
`customDomain`	No	Custom-domain state { domain, status, serving, plan }
`languageUrls`	No	One link per language version
`defaultShareUrl`	No	The same quiz on the default domain — always works

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false; the description adds useful behavioral context by explaining what the tool reveals, including whether the form will accept responses. It does not contradict any 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 information-dense without fluff: it packs the return contents, the utmSource tagging effect, and the sibling tool reference into two sentences. Every clause earns its place.

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 read-only getter with rich output, strong annotations, and complete schema descriptions, this description gives the agent everything it needs to decide when to call it and what it will get back. No meaningful gap remains.

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?

The schema covers all 4 parameters at 100% with detailed descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for utmSource (tagging links/snippets for one channel) but does not meaningfully go beyond the schema's existing parameter documentation.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose with specific deliverables: public answer link, custom domain status, embed snippets, and delivery settings. It explicitly names the sibling tool update_form_settings to distinguish the read/get nature of this operation.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: answering 'give me the link / the embed code' and sanity-checking a launch. It also directly states when to switch to update_form_settings, giving the agent clear routing guidance among siblings.

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?