RooQuiz

list_forms

Read-only

List the forms of the current team. Returned in reverse chronological order of creation, without question content (use get_form for details).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Items per page, default 20, max 100
`scene`	No	Filter by scene, optional
`titleContains`	No	Fuzzy match by title, optional

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`items`	No	The page of forms (newest first)
`totalDocs`	No	Total forms matching the filter

Schema Changelog

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

First observedAug 24, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark it as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: ordering by creation date, exclusion of question content, and team scoping. These details are valuable beyond the annotation flags.

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 concise sentences, no filler, with the core behavior front-loaded and the pointer to get_form added without awkwardness. Every phrase earns its place.

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 simple read-only list tool, the description plus full schema plus output schema provides everything an agent needs: scope, ordering, content exclusions, filtering options, and next-step guidance for details. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions for limit, scene, and titleContains, so the schema already carries the parameter documentation. The description does not add parameter-level details, which is acceptable given the high schema coverage.

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 concrete verb and resource ('List the forms of the current team') and adds essential output behavior: reverse chronological order and no question content. This clearly differentiates it from get_form, which is explicitly referenced for details.

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?

Provides clear context: this is for browsing forms of the current team, and get_form is the alternative when detailed question content is needed. It does not enumerate every sibling distinction, but the key alternative route is explicit.

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?