QuestionPunk

Display Logic Group Create

display_logic_group_create

Add another leg of conditions to a question's display logic (draft surveys only); the container's 'or'/'and' combines legs. Each group has exactly one source: sourceSurveyItemId (an answer) or sourceUrlParameterId (an enum URL parameter, with is/is_not and args { value: "" }), and starts with one rule; add rules with display_logic_rule_create. displayLogicContainerId comes from display_logic_list or display_logic_container_create.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "displayLogicContainerId": "<displayLogicContainerId>",
      "surveyId": "<surveyId>",
      "groupCondition": "<groupCondition>",
      "displayLogicRules": "<displayLogicRules>"
    },
    "name": "display_logic_group_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`surveyId`	Yes	The survey ID
`groupCondition`	Yes	How to combine rules in this group
`displayLogicRules`	Yes	Exactly one rule for this group with ruleCondition and args. For url-param sources: { ruleCondition: "is"\|"is_not", args: { value: "<enum value>" } }.
`sourceSurveyItemId`	No	Answer source: question whose answer triggers the logic. Mutually exclusive with sourceUrlParameterId (provide exactly one).
`sourceUrlParameterId`	No	URL-parameter source: survey URL parameter whose value triggers the logic. Mutually exclusive with sourceSurveyItemId (provide exactly one).
`displayLogicContainerId`	Yes	Container ID to add group to

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare it as a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive mutation. The description adds real value on top: the draft-survey-only restriction (an agent will otherwise fail on published surveys) and the structural constraint that a group is created with exactly one rule that must then be extended via another tool. Auth/error behavior and what happens to existing logic are not covered, keeping it below a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and the draft-only scope, then prerequisites, then the follow-on tool. It is dense — several clauses are packed with parenthetical detail — but nearly every clause carries actionable information, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation. Given six parameters, a nested rules array, and a multi-tool display-logic workflow, the description still covers the full creation sequence, prerequisites, and the sibling to call next, leaving no gap that would cause a mis-call.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description earns more by supplying the conceptual model not in the schema — that the container's condition combines legs, and that URL-parameter sources use is/is_not with args { value: "<enum value>" }. The source mutual-exclusivity is repeated from the schema, but the group-combination semantics and the enum-argument shape are genuine additions.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Add another leg of conditions to a question's display logic'), explains the 'or'/'and' container semantics, and explicitly separates itself from the sibling display_logic_rule_create. An agent can distinguish create-group from create-rule without opening either schema.

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?

Gives explicit preconditions and alternatives: draft surveys only, each group has exactly one source (sourceSurveyItemId or sourceUrlParameterId), the group starts with one rule, further rules go through display_logic_rule_create, and displayLogicContainerId is obtained from display_logic_list or display_logic_container_create. This is the when/how/where chain an agent needs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All QuestionPunk 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?