LimeSurvey MCP Server

Set group properties

limesurvey_set_group_properties

Instructions

Update question-group properties. Writable fields: group_order, randomization_group, grelevance, group_name, description. NOT writable through RemoteControl (the call is rejected before any request is sent): sid, gid, group_l10ns. A group cannot be moved to another survey or restructured through RemoteControl; re-import it (limesurvey_import_group with import_data_path) or use the LimeSurvey admin UI. Localized texts (group_name, description) need a language: {"language": "de", "group_name": "..."}. group_name and description are localized: pass them with data.language (this tool has no language parameter); the server moves them into questiongroupl10ns[language], so the other text field is never blanked. Keys LimeSurvey does not report back are returned in warnings. Verified against the LimeSurvey 6.17.11 source; older releases may differ.

Calls LimeSurvey RemoteControl method set_group_properties. Authentication uses the configured service account; do not provide a session key.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Group property names mapped to new values.
`group_id`	Yes	Numeric question-group ID.
`response_format`	No	Output format. JSON preserves the complete structured result; Markdown is optimized for reading.	json

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`method`	Yes
`result`	Yes
`warnings`	No
`truncated`	No
`truncation_message`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv1.6.0Oct 14, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / warnings

Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "$ref": "#/definitions/__schema0"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}

First observedv1.3.1Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: rejected fields are 'rejected before any request is sent', writable vs non-writable fields are enumerated, localization semantics are explained (server moves texts into questiongroupl10ns[language], 'the other text field is never blanked'), unreported keys surface in warnings, and auth uses the service account with no session key. This is far richer than the readOnly/destructive/openWorld hints alone.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and writable fields, and most sentences carry distinct information. There is mild redundancy (the localized-text rule is restated twice) but the version caveat and warnings note both earn their place.

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 a mutation tool with an output schema present and openWorld/idempotent/destructive annotations, the description covers constraint reversibility implications (text not blanked), failure modes (rejected fields, warnings), auth, and version scope. An agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, and the description materially improves on the opaque 'Group property names mapped to new values' by naming writable keys and the data.language convention for localized fields. It does not add anything for group_id or response_format, keeping it out of the top band.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Update question-group properties') and enumerates the writable fields (group_order, randomization_group, grelevance, group_name, description). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_group_properties, add_group, and import_group.

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?

Explicitly states unsupported operations and names the alternatives ('A group cannot be moved to another survey... re-import it (limesurvey_import_group) or use the LimeSurvey admin UI'), which is strong when-not guidance. It does not, however, explicitly route the agent to get_group_properties for reading, so it falls just short of full alternative mapping.

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

Deploy Server