RooQuiz

update_booking_status

Close out a confirmed booking of the current team: mark it completed, mark the attendee as a no-show, or cancel it. Only works on a booking whose status is scheduled; completed / no_show additionally require the meeting to have already started. Cancelling notifies the attendee by email and fires the booking.cancelled integration event; completed / no_show are internal bookkeeping and do not contact the attendee. To handle a pending request use review_booking instead.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`status`	Yes	completed = the meeting happened, no_show = the attendee did not turn up, cancelled = call it off and notify them
`bookingId`	Yes	The booking id (the bookingId returned by list_bookings)

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`status`	No	completed / no_show / cancelled
`bookingId`	No	The booking that was closed out
`cancelledAt`	No	ISO datetime, set when the booking was cancelled

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Given no annotations providing safety details, the description carries the full burden, and it delivers: it discloses cancellation sends attendee email and fires booking.cancelled, while completed/no_show are internal and contact no one. It also states precondition requirements, going well beyond the 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 dense, front-loaded, and contains no filler. The core action and allowed states come first, then preconditions and side effects, then the routing note about review_booking. Every sentence adds necessary information.

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?

The tool has only two parameters and an output schema. The description covers allowed transitions, preconditions, side effects, and the boundary versus review_booking. There is no missing guidance an agent needs to invoke this safely and 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both status meanings and bookingId. The description does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema provides, though it does contextualize behavior around them. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Close out a confirmed booking') and enumerates the exact status transitions: completed, no_show, or cancelled. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from review_booking. An agent can immediately understand what this tool targets and how it differs from siblings.

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?

The when-to-use conditions are explicit: it only works on bookings with scheduled status, completed/no_show require the meeting to have started, and pending requests should use review_booking instead. This is precise, actionable guidance that prevents misuse and correctly routes to the alternative.

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?