Skip to main content
Glama

addScreeningQuestion

Adds a question to this beta project's screening form (the public application form). Only usable BEFORE the form is live: publish it with publishScreeningForm once the questions are ready. Allowed types: MultipleChoices, SingleChoice, FreeText, YesNo, Rate, Instructions (file and ranking are not supported on screening forms). Auto-review rules can then reference the question by its questionId (getScreeningSetup). Requires the screening setup to exist (configureScreening). Each question carries ready: false means it fails authoring validation (a choice question with no options, say) and blocks publishScreeningForm until fixed. ready is input for your reasoning, not for users: when everything passes, do not mention it; when something fails, say what is missing in plain words instead of quoting the flag.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe question shown to applicants.
typeYesThe answer type.
contentNoThe step configuration, shaped by type: for MultipleChoices/SingleChoice an array of at least 2 { choice } options with non-empty texts, optionally plus ONE final { choice: "Other", other: true } option that lets the tester type a free answer (its label is fixed: choice must be the literal text "Other", any other wording is rejected); for Rate an object { scale (number, 3 or more), symbol ("Thumb", "Star" or "Square"), lowerText?, higherText? (labels for the scale ends, up to 20 characters, default empty) }; for Ranking an array of at least 2 items { id (a v4 UUID you generate), text } with unique ids and unique texts; for TriggeredEmail an object { to, subject, message, cc? } where to is { allManagers?: boolean, allTesters?: boolean, tagsIds?: string[], personFieldIds?: string[] } and names at least one audience, subject is plain text of at most 128 characters and takes no variables (nothing replaces them there, so the recipient would read the braces), message is the email body as basic HTML reading at most 4096 characters of text, and cc is a list of Person custom field ids. Any other key of the email object or of to is rejected rather than dropped, so bcc and to.emails are not accepted: nothing would send to them. tagsIds are tester tag ids from listTesterTags, and ONLY the entries it marks assignable: a computed smart tag is rejected because a triggered email cannot be sent to one. personFieldIds and cc are ids of Person-type fields from listCustomFields; a personFieldIds field routes the email to the manager-persons that tester recorded in it, cc puts them in copy. The email goes out the first time a tester answers or skips the step before it (skipping a whole optional task sends nothing), one email per tester, and the audiences reach: allTesters ONLY that tester, never every tester in the beta project; tagsIds that same tester, only if they carry one of the tags (tester tags never reach managers, and beta labels are not tags); allManagers every manager on the beta project. To notify a manager when a tester finishes a task, make this the task's last step and use allManagers or personFieldIds. message may use these tester variables: {{USERNAME}}, {{FULL_NAME}}, {{ADDRESS}}, {{EMAIL}}, {{PHONE}}, {{PROJECT_NAME}}, {{WORKSPACE}}, {{REMAINING_PROJECT_DAYS}}, {{CURRENT_WEEK_DAY}}. The {{MANAGER_*}} ones belong to invitations and are rejected here. On an SDK beta project the audience must be managers only (allManagers), because its testers are not workspace testers and every other audience would reach nobody. REQUIRED for MultipleChoices, SingleChoice, Rate, Ranking and TriggeredEmail; omitting it is rejected. Must be OMITTED for FreeText, Instructions and File; passing one is rejected. Omit it for YesNo too (its answers are fixed to Yes / No, set automatically); passing that exact pair back is accepted, anything else is rejected. Pass the array or object value itself, not a JSON-encoded string. Call getBetaTasks to see the current shape of existing steps.
requiredNoWhether the applicant must answer. Defaults to true.
productIdYesID of the beta project to query. Get valid IDs from the listProducts tool.
descriptionNoSupporting detail shown under the question (basic HTML allowed).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses important behavior: allowed and unsupported question types, the pre-live constraint, the readiness validation that blocks publishScreeningForm, and the auto-review linkage by questionId. The annotations only provide basic mutation hints, so this added operational context is substantial.

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?

The description is front-loaded and efficient for a tool with complex authoring rules. It contains useful constraints and only a small amount of meta-guidance about interpreting the ready flag, which is justified by the behavior it describes.

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?

For a complex authoring tool, it covers the key prerequisites, timing window, allowed types, readiness validation, and follow-up actions. It only lightly implies the return value via questionId and does not fully explain the response shape, but the core invocation context is present.

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 input schema's content property already documents type-dependent content rules extensively. The description mainly reiterates the allowed types and readiness behavior rather than adding new parameter-level semantics 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 the exact verb and resource: 'Adds a question to this beta project's screening form (the public application form).' It also distinguishes the tool from publishScreeningForm and getScreeningSetup by explaining the authoring phase and prerequisites.

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 clearly states when the tool is usable: only BEFORE the form is live, after the screening setup exists. It also points to publishScreeningForm as the next step, but it does not explicitly route edits to updateScreeningQuestion or deletes to deleteScreeningQuestion.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources