LimeSurvey MCP Server

Set participant properties

limesurvey_set_participant_properties

Instructions

Update a participant matched by token or token-table ID. Writable fields: participant_id, firstname, lastname, email, emailstatus, token, language, blacklisted, sent, remindersent, remindercount, completed, usesleft, validfrom, validuntil, mpid, attribute_N. NOT writable through RemoteControl (the call is rejected before any request is sent): tid. Participant rows are changed by token or tid in query; the participant table must exist (check limesurvey_get_participant_table_status). attribute_N stands for the custom attribute columns of the participant table (attribute_1, attribute_2, ...). Validation errors (for example an invalid email) are returned as an error. 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_participant_properties. Authentication uses the configured service account; do not provide a session key.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`data`	Yes	Participant properties to update.
`query`	Yes	Participant lookup properties.
`survey_id`	Yes	Numeric LimeSurvey survey 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?

Annotations mark it as a non-idempotent, non-read-only mutation, and the description goes well beyond that: it discloses the pre-send rejection of tid, that validation errors surface as errors while unreported keys come back as warnings, the auth model (service account, no session key), and version-verification scope.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the core action and writable field set come first, followed by constraints and caveats. The long field enumeration and version note are justified by the free-form data map, though the prose runs slightly long.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, and the description covers matching keys, field constraints, error/warning behavior, and prerequisites. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 3 is the baseline, but the description adds real meaning the schema lacks: the full writable-field list, the attribute_N convention for custom columns, and the fact that query can match by token or tid. The schema itself places no enum or per-key constraints on the free-form maps.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Update a participant matched by token or token-table ID') and immediately names the writable field set, which distinguishes it from the read-only sibling limesurvey_get_participant_properties.

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?

Gives a concrete prerequisite ('the participant table must exist') and routes the agent to limesurvey_get_participant_table_status for that check, plus an explicit exclusion (tid is not writable). It does not spell out when to prefer this over add/delete participants, but the context is clear.

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

Deploy Server