QuestionPunk

Report Options From Results

report_options_from_results

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read-only. The top answers to a question, ranked, to use as another question's choices: the most common short-text entries (multiple-entry answers split into entries, case-insensitive duplicates merged), the most picked multiple choice or dropdown choices, a ranking's top items by Borda count, or a wiki survey's top-scored ideas. Several short-text questions of one survey can be pooled. Real responses only, without ballots left out of the count; text entries and ideas only from the responses the plan shows. Returns { options, results: [{ text, score, count }], sourceType, responses }. It changes nothing: to use the choices, write them with question_update. To combine similar entries into themes (a retro's notes), read more entries than you need and group them yourself before writing. Needs edit access to targetSurveyId and read access to sourceSurveyId; answers from a HIPAA team's survey are refused unless the target survey is in the same team.

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": {
      "targetSurveyId": "<targetSurveyId>",
      "sourceSurveyId": "<sourceSurveyId>",
      "sourceQuestionIds": "<sourceQuestionIds>"
    },
    "name": "report_options_from_results"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`count`	No	How many choices to return (default 6)
`sourceSurveyId`	Yes	The survey whose results are read; may be the same
`targetSurveyId`	Yes	The survey whose question will get the choices
`targetQuestionId`	No	The question that will get the choices (optional)
`sourceQuestionIds`	Yes	One question (short_text, multiple_choice, dropdown, ranking or wiki_survey), or several short_text questions to pool

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

AddedNov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses permission requirements (edit access to targetSurveyId, read access to sourceSurveyId), a HIPAA cross-team refusal rule, and exclusion behavior ('real responses only, without ballots left out of the count'). Those are exactly the operational constraints an agent cannot infer from structured fields.

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?

It front-loads the read-only guarantee and the core purpose, and every sentence carries real information (output shape, permissions, HIPAA, follow-up tool). The first sentence is a long enumerated run-on that could be broken up for faster scanning, but no content is wasted.

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 present, return values needn't be described, yet the description still summarizes them; permissions, edge cases, and the downstream write path are all covered. The only gap is that 'count' and 'targetQuestionId' semantics are left entirely to the schema, which is acceptable at 100% coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so parameter documentation is already complete; the description only restates that multiple short-text questions can be pooled, which the sourceQuestionIds description already conveys. No syntax, count semantics, or target/targetQuestion interaction is added beyond the schema.

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 names a specific operation (derive ranked answer choices from a survey's results) and enumerates the four result types it handles: short-text entries, multiple-choice/dropdown picks, Borda-ranked items, and wiki-survey ideas. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling question_update, which it explicitly frames as the downstream writer.

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 states the intended workflow ('to use the choices, write them with question_update') and gives an explicit when-not/alternative path for theme grouping ('read more entries than you need and group them yourself'). What's missing is a clear statement of the inverse condition — when to skip this tool entirely and read raw answers instead.

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?