QuestionPunk

Survey Update Thank Screen

survey_update_thank_screen

Destructive

Set, or clear with null, the thank-you screen shown after the last question, in one of the survey's languages. Send title and description together. Needs version = versions.current from survey_get; the result returns the next surveyVersion.

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": {
      "surveyId": "<surveyId>",
      "lang": "<lang>",
      "version": "<version>"
    },
    "name": "survey_update_thank_screen"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`lang`	Yes	Language code
`version`	Yes	Current survey version: versions.current from survey_get, or the surveyVersion your last edit returned. A stale version is rejected (WRONG_VERSION). The result returns the next one as surveyVersion.
`surveyId`	Yes	Survey ID (from survey_list)
`thank_screen_text`	No	Thank you screen content (null to clear)

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already declare destructive=true, idempotent=false, and openWorld=true. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the versioning requirement to avoid stale writes, the expected next surveyVersion in the result, and the null-clearing semantics. It does not explain exactly what content is destroyed on clear, but the main operational constraints are disclosed.

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?

Three tight sentences front-load the core action, then the clearing rule, then the versioning prerequisite and return behavior. There is no redundant or filler language.

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 rich input schema, existing output schema, and annotations covering safety and mutability, the description supplies the remaining critical context: how to clear the screen and where to get the required version. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly appears missing.

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%, so the schema already defines each parameter in detail, including version lifecycle and nested title/description requirements. The description reinforces the 'send together' constraint and null-clearing behavior but does not introduce much meaning beyond the schema. 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 names a specific verb ('Set, or clear with null'), a precise resource ('the thank-you screen shown after the last question'), and scope ('in one of the survey's languages'). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling welcome-screen updater without requiring the agent to compare 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 states the key usage prerequisite: fetch version from survey_get and send title and description together. It also explains the null case for clearing. It stops short of explicitly naming when not to use it or naming an alternative sibling, but the context is sufficiently clear.

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?