RooQuiz

create_form_from_template

Create a new form in your team by cloning a public template, including scoring, reports, visuals, and all language versions. Pass an optional title to override the template title.

Instructions

Create a new form in the current team from a public template (find template ids with list_templates). Clones the template structure, scoring/report configuration, visual settings, and all language versions in one call; pass title to override the template title. After creation you can adjust it with update_form / update_question etc. This is the fastest way to build a quiz when a suitable template exists — prefer it over building from scratch with create_form. Not idempotent: if the call times out it may still have succeeded, so retrying blindly can create a duplicate — check first, then retry only if it is really missing.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "templateId": "<templateId>"
    },
    "name": "create_form_from_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`title`	No	Optional new form title; defaults to the template title
`templateId`	Yes	The template ID to create the form from

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	No	The new form id
`url`	No	Admin edit URL
`scene`	No	knowledge_quiz / scored_quiz / outcome_quiz
`title`	No	Form title
`language`	No	Primary language cloned from the template
`shareUrl`	No	Public share / answer link
`publicToken`	No	Token behind the public answer link
`translationLanguages`	No	Languages cloned along with the structure

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.9/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (mutation allowed, not read-only), the description proactively discloses the non-idempotent behavior: 'if the call times out it may still have succeeded, so retrying blindly can create a duplicate — check first, then retry only if it is really missing.' It also details exactly what is cloned (structure, scoring/report config, visual settings, all language versions), which is materially useful context not captured by annotations or schema.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

All four sentences earn their place: purpose, scoping/cloning detail, guidance on alternatives, and a critical non-idempotency warning. The main verb and object are front-loaded, and there is no redundant fluff.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers everything needed: what it creates, where to get template IDs, what is cloned, how to override the title, how to adjust afterward, when to prefer it, and the retry caveat. With an output schema present, return values need no further explanation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by telling the agent to 'find template ids with list_templates' — a concrete source for the templateId parameter — and by clarifying the title override behavior, even though the schema already mentions the default. This extra guidance lifts it to a 4.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Create a new form in the current team from a public template.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly referencing create_form as the alternative to build from scratch and by mentioning subsequent adjustability via update_form/update_question, so an agent can tell this tool apart without opening schemas.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'prefer it over building from scratch with create_form' when a suitable template exists. It also points to list_templates for finding template IDs and notes post-creation adjustment with update_form/update_question, making both the selection and follow-up path explicit.

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

Deploy Server