Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qualtrics MCP Server

Qualtrics MCP Server

by yrvelez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_quota_group

Read-only

Retrieve a quota group's complete raw Qualtrics definition, including quota membership, using the survey ID and quota group ID.

Instructions

Get a quota group's complete raw Qualtrics definition, including its quota membership

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": {
      "surveyId": "<surveyId>",
      "quotaGroupId": "<quotaGroupId>"
    },
    "name": "get_quota_group"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
surveyIdYesThe Qualtrics survey ID
quotaGroupIdYesThe quota group ID (for example, QG_abc123)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=true. Description adds that it returns 'complete raw Qualtrics definition' and 'quota membership', but does not disclose additional behavioral details such as what 'raw definition' entails or whether there are any side effects. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some context but not extensive behavioral transparency.

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?

Single sentence that is front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words; every word adds value.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple nature of the tool (read operation), the description is mostly complete. It mentions the return includes 'complete raw Qualtrics definition' and 'quota membership', which compensates for the lack of an output schema. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the response format.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions. The description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema, so baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description states 'Get a quota group's complete raw Qualtrics definition, including its quota membership', clearly specifying the action (Get), resource (quota group), and scope (complete raw definition with quota membership). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_quota_groups, create_quota_group, etc.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose implies it's for fetching a single group's full definition, but there is no mention of when not to use it or reference to other tools for similar tasks.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools