RooQuiz

get_record

Read-only

View the full detail of one submission record (lead) in the current team by its record id (the id field returned by list_records), including the examinee, the submitted answers, UTM metadata and the complete frozen report result (overall / dimensions / outcome / AI evaluation). Answers are returned as the respondent wrote them, except that any email address or phone number inside them comes back masked.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`recordId`	Yes	The record id (the `id` returned by list_records)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	Record id — address a submission by this
`data`	No	The submitted answers keyed by question code, as typed by the respondent — with any email address or phone number inside them masked
`formId`	No	The quiz this submission belongs to
`examinee`	No	The respondent { id, examineeId, email, name, customData }, PII masked
`metadata`	No	Channel attribution { utmSource, utmMedium, utmCampaign, utmTerm, utmContent, referrer }
`reportUrl`	No	Public report page URL for this submission
`updatedAt`	No	ISO datetime of the last change
`shareToken`	No	Token that makes this single report page shareable
`submittedAt`	No	ISO datetime of submission
`reportResult`	No	The complete frozen report { status, overallAnalysis, dimensionAnalysis, outcome, aiEvaluation, aiSuggestion }
`serialNumber`	No	Per-form sequence number of the submission

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral transparency beyond the annotations: it discloses privacy masking of email addresses and phone numbers in submitted answers and explains that the answer are the submitter's answers except for that masking. This is valuable context for an agent deciding whether results are raw or scrubbed.

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 structured with the primary action and key facts front-loaded: the specific resource, the source of the id, and the detailed content of the returned record. The second sentence adds important masking behavior. It is fairly long, but the detail is pertinent and each 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?

Given the tool has a rich output schema, the description does not need to enumerate the return fields. It appropriately covers how to locate the record (`id` from list_records), the team scope, the inclusion of UTM metadata, the frozen report, and the masking behavior. Nothing critical seems missing for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 input schema already fully documents `recordId` as 'The record id (the `id` returned by list_records)'. The description essentially repeats the same information without adding new parameter nuances such as formats, constraints, or valid values. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific action ('View') and resource ('one submission record / lead'), and details exactly what is contained in the returned detail. It also ties the resource to the `id` field from list_records. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like get_lead or get_examinee, so it lacks complete sibling differentiation.

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 gives clear context on when to use the tool: after obtaining a record id from list_records, for viewing the full detail of a submission in the current team. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or which alternatives to prefer, but the intended entry point of use is clear.

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?