RooQuiz

create_form_translation

Add a language version (translation) to a form. Clones the source text as the initial draft and returns it so you can translate right away: edit the human-readable text in place, keep every code identical to the source, then save with update_form_translation. The language must differ from the form's primary language, and there is at most one translation per language (see list_form_translations).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`formId`	Yes	The source form UUID
`language`	Yes	Target language for the new version. Must differ from the form's primary language.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`cloned`	No	The cloned source draft — translate the text in place, keep every code, then save
`formId`	No	The source form
`language`	No	Language of the new version
`shareUrl`	No	Public link for this language (source token + ?lang=)
`translationId`	No	The new translation id

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

First observedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description thoroughly discloses behavior beyond annotations: it clones source text as the initial draft, returns the draft for immediate editing, requires keeping codes identical, and enforces one translation per language and language differing from primary. This gives the agent a clear mental model of what will happen.

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?

A compact, front-loaded description that packs essential info into three sentences: the action, the return and workflow, and the constraints. No filler or redundant restating of the schema.

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?

The description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly: the purpose, the workflow, constraints, and where to verify uniqueness. The output schema covers return-value details, so the description completes the behavioral picture.

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 meaningful context for 'language' (must differ from primary, one per language) and clarifies that 'formId' is the source form. It also explains that clones source text, tying parameters to the behavior.

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: 'Add a language version (translation) to a form.' It clearly differentiates from related siblings like update_form_translation (for saving edits) and list_form_translations (for checking existing translations).

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 clear usage context: use this to create a translation, then save with update_form_translation, and check list_form_translations for uniqueness. It could be more explicit about when not to use it or which alternative covers different cases, but the workflow is well communicated.

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

All RooQuiz tools Inspect

Try in Browser

RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the form, question, and translation families. The main ambiguity is between the lead/record tools: list_leads/get_lead vs list_records/get_record both describe entities as 'leads' even though one is the CRM lead and the other is the submission record. update_form vs update_form_settings is also a minor naming overlap, but the descriptions resolve it.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: get_*, list_*, create_*, update_*, delete_*, add_*, set_*, etc. Even paired image upload tools follow the same convention with prepare_/finalize_. There is no camelCase or mixed verb-style chaos.

Tool Count2/5

48 tools is far above the 25-tool threshold for a heavy tool surface. While the server covers a broad platform (forms, translations, leads, bookings, examinees, tenants, images), the sheer number will burden an agent's tool-selection step. Each tool may earn its place, but the overall set is too large for easy navigation.

Completeness4/5

The toolset provides solid lifecycle coverage for forms, questions, translations, leads, bookings, examinees, and tenant administration. Minor gaps exist, such as no lead deletion/export and no way to create or delete examinees, but agents can work around these for the core quiz-and-CRM workflow. The form/translation/question CRUD surface is especially thorough.

Resources

Need Help?