Skip to main content
Glama
edgarrmondragon

LimeSurvey MCP Server

by edgarrmondragon
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Remote

import_cpdb_participants

Import participants from a central database into a LimeSurvey survey using specific attributes to filter and select appropriate respondents.

Instructions

Import participants from the central participant database.

Args:
    sid: The survey ID.
    attributes: The attributes to filter participants.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sidYes
attributesYes

Implementation Reference

  • main.py:611-620 (handler)
    The handler function for the 'import_cpdb_participants' MCP tool. It is registered via the @mcp.tool() decorator and proxies the call to the Citric client's import_cpdb_participants method.
    @mcp.tool()
def import_cpdb_participants(sid: int, attributes: dict[str, Any]) -> dict[str, Any]:
    """Import participants from the central participant database.

    Args:
        sid: The survey ID.
        attributes: The attributes to filter participants.
    """
    with get_client() as client:
        return client.import_cpdb_participants(sid, attributes)

Tool Definition Quality

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. While 'Import' implies a write operation, the description doesn't specify whether this creates new records, updates existing ones, requires specific permissions, has side effects, or provides any feedback about the import process. This is inadequate for a tool that likely modifies data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is reasonably concise with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter explanations. However, the parameter section uses minimal explanations that don't add substantial value. The structure is front-loaded but could be more efficient in conveying necessary information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 2 parameters (including a nested object), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens during import, error conditions, or how it differs from similar sibling tools. The description leaves too many open questions for effective tool selection and use.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds some value by explaining that 'sid' is 'The survey ID' and 'attributes' are 'The attributes to filter participants.' However, this is minimal - it doesn't clarify what format 'attributes' should take, what filtering logic is applied, or what happens when no participants match the filter. The description compensates partially but not fully for the schema coverage gap.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action ('Import participants') and source ('from the central participant database'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'add_participants' or 'import_group', which handle similar participant/survey data operations.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With sibling tools like 'add_participants', 'import_survey', and 'import_group' available, there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred over other participant management tools.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/edgarrmondragon/limesurvey-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server