RooQuiz

get_lead

Read-only

View one lead of the current team by leadId: follow-up status, assignee, colour tags, the respondent block, and the next upcoming booking. Optionally include the respondent's submission history (which quizzes they took, with score / level), the team's internal follow-up comments, and the change timeline (status / assignee / tag changes plus submissions). Reference a lead by its leadId and a respondent by examineeId, never by a masked email.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`leadId`	Yes	The lead id (the leadId returned by list_leads)
`includeRecords`	No	Include the respondent's submission history (default true)
`includeComments`	No	Include the internal follow-up comments written by team members (default false)
`includeActivities`	No	Include the change timeline: status / assignee / tag changes and submissions (default false)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`tags`	No	Colour tag codes on this lead
`leadId`	No	Lead id — address a lead by this, never by a masked email
`status`	No	Follow-up status code (team-defined, see list_lead_settings)
`records`	No	Submission history as { totalDocs, items } (unless includeRecords was false)
`assignee`	No	The member handling this lead as { id, email, username }, or null
`comments`	No	Internal follow-up notes written by team members (only when includeComments)
`createdAt`	No	ISO datetime the lead was created
`firstForm`	No	The quiz that first captured this lead as { id, title }
`activities`	No	Change timeline as { totalDocs, items } (only when includeActivities)
`respondent`	No	The respondent { id, examineeId, email, name, customData, ... }, PII masked
`nextBooking`	No	The next active booking of this respondent, or null
`recordCount`	No	How many times this respondent submitted
`lastRecordAt`	No	ISO datetime of the most recent submission
`firstRecordAt`	No	ISO datetime of the first submission

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark this as read-only and non-destructive. The description goes beyond annotations by disclosing exactly what the read returns, what each optional include expands, and that identifier lookup is scoped to the current team. The masked-email warning is a helpful behavioral constraint not present in the schema alone.

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?

Two sentences with no redundancy: the main action and return fields are front-loaded, optional behavior is listed compactly, and the key identifier caution is a short final clause. Every sentence 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?

With an output schema present and annotations covering the safety profile, the description fills the remaining gaps: what data is included, what optional includes add, and how to correctly reference lead and respondent. Nothing an agent needs to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description still adds value by specifying that leadId is the leadId returned by list_leads, reinforcing which identifier to pass, and warning against using masked emails. Optional flags are semantically clear in both schema and description.

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 and resource ('View one lead'), names the lead identifier, and enumerates exactly what data is returned (status, assignee, tags, respondent block, next upcoming booking). This is clearly distinct from sibling tools like list_leads or get_examinee because the scope is explicitly 'one lead of the current team'.

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 clearly indicates when to use this tool: to view a single lead in the current team. It also explains how to reference identifiers ('by its leadId ... never by a masked email') and when to enable optional inclusions such as submission history, internal comments, and change timeline. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives like list_leads for broad queries, but the use 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

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?