quiz_video_apply_templateApply a snapshot of a custom template to one or more quizzes you own. Sets each quiz's template field to "custom" and writes the snapshot into themeCustomization.customTemplate. Future edits to the source template do not auto-propagate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| quizIds | Yes | Quiz ids to apply the template to. | |
| templateId | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond annotations by specifying exactly which fields are mutated (template field set to 'custom' and themeCustomization.customTemplate) and clarifying that future edits do not auto-propagate. This is consistent with idempotentHint and readOnly=false.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no fluff; the first sentence states the action and target, the second provides necessary behavioral detail about the snapshot mechanism.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity, the description covers purpose, fields modified, and the snapshot caveat. It does not explain error cases or return values, but these are not critical for this 2-parameter tool with no output schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 50%, with templateId lacking a description. The description provides context that templateId refers to a custom template and that it's applied as a snapshot, but does not fully clarify the parameter semantics for templateId. It adds some value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it applies a snapshot of a custom template to one or more quizzes, distinguishing it from template creation/update and quiz update tools. It specifies the verb (apply), resource (quiz), and scope (one or more), with context on custom templates.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
It implies usage for applying a custom template to owned quizzes and notes the snapshot behavior. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives like manually updating quizzes or re-applying after template changes, so it provides clear context but no explicit when-not conditions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Every tool targets a distinct resource and action (create/get/list/update/delete per entity). Overlapping pairs like get_render vs download_render are clearly differentiated by their purpose, and generate_quiz vs create_quiz serve different creation modes. There is no ambiguity between tools.
The vast majority of tools follow a consistent 'quiz_video_<verb>_<noun>' pattern in snake_case. The only deviation is the three discovery tools (get_api_catalog, get_llms_txt, get_openapi_spec) which omit the 'quiz_video_' prefix, though they still use a clear verb_noun structure.
With 30 tools, the server is on the heavier side and exceeds the typical 15-tool guideline. However, the count is justified by the breadth of resources covered (quizzes, questions, hooks, templates, flashcard decks, renders, music, account) and each tool has a distinct role, so the size feels appropriate for a comprehensive API surface.
The server covers full CRUD for most core resources (quizzes, templates, flashcard decks, hooks) and add/list for questions. Minor gaps include no individual question update/delete and no direct render deletion, but these are not critical and the main workflows (create → view → render → download) are fully covered.