Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Qualtrics MCP Server

Qualtrics MCP Server

by yrvelez
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

update_quota

Idempotent

Replace an existing Qualtrics quota with a complete raw definition. Send the full payload to avoid omission of fields.

Instructions

Replace a quota with a complete raw Qualtrics definition. Use get_quota first, modify the returned definition, and send the complete payload because PUT may replace omitted fields.

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>",
      "quotaId": "<quotaId>",
      "quota": "<quota>"
    },
    "name": "update_quota"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
quotaYesComplete replacement Qualtrics quota definition
quotaIdYesThe quota ID to update
surveyIdYesThe Qualtrics survey ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint and destructiveHint. The description adds context about PUT semantics ('replaces omitted fields'), which is valuable beyond the annotations. No contradictions.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Efficiently conveys purpose, usage, and critical behavioral note. Front-loaded with the key action.

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 tool with a nested object parameter and a note about PUT semantics, the description is complete. It covers how to construct the payload, the need for a prior GET, and the risk of omitting fields. No output schema needed.

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. Description adds value by explaining the workflow: use get_quota first and modify the returned definition, clarifying the 'complete payload' requirement for the quota parameter.

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 clearly states the verb 'replace' and the resource 'quota with a complete raw Qualtrics definition'. It differentiates from siblings like get_quota, create_quota, and delete_quota by emphasizing full replacement.

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?

Explicitly advises to retrieve the quota first via get_quota, then modify and send the complete payload, warning about PUT behavior replacing omitted fields. Provides clear when-to-use and why.

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