dForms

Set where responses go

set_destinations

DestructiveIdempotent

Replace a form's destinations (webhooks and HubSpot) with this list. It applies to the live form at once, with no publish step. The list usually starts from get_form's destinations (the live form's, with ids, secrets masked), keeping every entry that is not being changed, with its id. Signing secrets come back masked. A masked secret sent back unchanged keeps the stored one; a new string replaces it; null removes it. A webhook URL needs https. ping_webhook sends one test delivery. 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.

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>",
      "destinations": "<destinations>"
    },
    "name": "set_destinations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`form_id`	Yes	The form id, from list_forms or get_form.
`destinations`	Yes	Every destination of the form: this list replaces the current one, and a destination left out is removed.
`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
`workspace`	Yes	The workspace this call acted in, to compare with the one the user means.
`updated_at`	Yes
`destinations`	Yes	The destinations as stored, secrets masked.
`hubspot_activity_error`	Yes	Why the HubSpot form activity could not be synced. The destinations were saved anyway.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: applies to the live form at once with no publish step, masked secrets round-trip (unchanged keeps stored, new string replaces, null removes), https required for webhook URLs, and post-error recovery via a read instead of a blind retry. Missing only what the response looks like, which the output schema covers.

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?

Front-loaded with the action and its immediacy, then supporting rules in descending order of importance; nearly every sentence carries actionable detail. It is dense and long-ish for a three-parameter tool, but no sentence is filler.

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, immediate, idempotent mutation with an output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies the replacement model, secret lifecycle, validation constraint, and error-recovery guidance. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it safely is missing.

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 goes beyond by explaining replacement semantics for the list, the id-preservation rule for unchanged entries, and the three-way secret handling (masked/new/null) plus the https constraint. That is real semantic value added on top of 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 — 'Replace a form's destinations (webhooks and HubSpot) with this list' — and clarifies it is a full replacement rather than a merge. An agent can immediately tell it apart from get_form (reads) and ping_webhook (test delivery).

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?

Gives explicit workflow: start from get_form's `destinations`, keep unchanged entries with their ids, use ping_webhook for a test delivery. It also names the when-not behavior (confirm with the user first, naming exactly what will change), leaving little to inference.

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?