dForms

Remove a form's email override

reset_form_notification

DestructiveIdempotent

Delete this form's own override of one response email, so the form follows the workspace setting again. The override's copy is lost. Destructive: it deletes or replaces data, so it is best confirmed with the user first, naming exactly what will change. After an error or a timeout, a read shows whether the change went through, so a blind retry is not needed. Owners and admins only.

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": {
      "form_id": "<form_id>",
      "email_key": "<email_key>"
    },
    "name": "reset_form_notification"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`form_id`	Yes	The form id, from list_forms or get_form.
`email_key`	Yes	submission_received: the notice to the team. submission_confirmed: the receipt to the person who answered.
`workspace_id`	No	The workspace this call acts in: an id from list_my_workspaces. Required for a person signed in with several workspaces and for staff of this deployment; optional with an API key or with only one workspace.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`form_id`	Yes
`setting`	Yes
`workspace`	Yes	The workspace this call acted in, to compare with the one the user means.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is partly structured. The description still adds genuinely useful context beyond them: the override's saved copy is permanently lost, and a read should confirm state after a failure instead of retrying blindly. It does not describe what the success response contains, but an output schema exists to cover that.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Four short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its consequence before the destructive confirmation advice and failure guidance. The destructive phrase restates the hint somewhat, but the operational advice that follows is still worth its space.

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 destructive, permissioned mutation with an output schema, the description covers consequence (copy lost), authorization (owners and admins), and recovery behavior (verify rather than retry). Nothing an agent needs before calling it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, including an inline explanation of each email_key enum value and when workspace_id is required, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces the single-email scope but adds no syntax or format meaning beyond the schema.

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 ("Delete this form's own override of one response email") plus the resulting state ("so the form follows the workspace setting again"). An agent can distinguish this from update_form_notification, which sets an override, without opening either schema.

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 concrete operating guidance: confirm with the user first naming exactly what will change, and verify with a read after an error or timeout rather than blind retrying. It also states the access prerequisite (owners and admins only). It stops short of explicitly naming sibling alternatives, so it is clear context rather than full when/when-not routing.

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

All dForms tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?