QuestionPunk

Display Logic Group Update

display_logic_group_update

Destructive

Change a display logic group's source question or URL parameter, or how it combines its rules (draft surveys only). Each group has exactly one source: sourceSurveyItemId or sourceUrlParameterId. displayLogicGroupId comes from display_logic_list.

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": {
      "displayLogicGroupId": "<displayLogicGroupId>",
      "surveyId": "<surveyId>",
      "groupCondition": "<groupCondition>"
    },
    "name": "display_logic_group_update"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`surveyId`	Yes	The survey ID
`groupCondition`	Yes	How to combine rules in this group
`sourceSurveyItemId`	No	Answer source: question whose answer triggers the logic. Mutually exclusive with sourceUrlParameterId (provide exactly one).
`displayLogicGroupId`	Yes	Group ID to update
`sourceUrlParameterId`	No	URL-parameter source: survey URL parameter whose value triggers the logic. Mutually exclusive with sourceSurveyItemId (provide exactly one).

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the destructiveHint=true and non-idempotent profile, so the description does not need to restate mutation. It does, however, add a constraint the annotations cannot express: the operation is restricted to draft surveys. It stops short of saying what happens to existing rules when the source or groupCondition changes, which matters for a destructive operation.

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, no filler. The scope and the draft-only restriction are front-loaded, and the second sentence carries only the two facts needed to construct valid arguments.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema covering the return value and annotations covering the safety profile, the description supplies the remaining essentials: what can change, the draft-only limit, and where the group ID comes from. The one gap is behavior on omission or replacement, e.g. whether supplying no source clears the existing source.

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 the sourceSurveyItemId/sourceUrlParameterId exclusivity and each parameter's meaning. The description restates the "exactly one source" invariant and the provenance of displayLogicGroupId rather than adding new semantics. With coverage this high, the baseline of 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 opens with a specific verb and resource ("Change a display logic group") and enumerates exactly which attributes can be modified: source question, URL parameter, or rule combination. This clearly separates it from display_logic_group_create, display_logic_group_delete, and display_logic_rule_update without requiring the agent to open the schemas.

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?

It supplies an explicit precondition ("draft surveys only") and names display_logic_list as the source of displayLogicGroupId, which tells the agent how to obtain the required identifier. What it lacks is a direct comparison to the sibling that also mutates logic, display_logic_rule_update, so the boundary between the two is left implicit.

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?