Skip to main content
Glama

Elicitly Pro

by ai.elicitly

Ask the user to fill a form

elicit_form

Trigger a form elicitation with a caller-supplied JSON schema; returns the raw {action, content}. For a plain OK/Cancel question, prefer elicit_confirm. MUST NOT be used to request secrets, credentials, or other sensitive information.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
messageYesThe instruction shown to the user above the form fields.
timeoutSecondsNoHow long to wait for the answer, in seconds (default 300, clamped 60-3600) — raise it for forms with several fields.
requestedSchemaYesJSON Schema for the form, restricted to the MCP elicitation requestedSchema subset: a flat object whose properties are strings, numbers/integers, booleans, or enums — no nested objects, arrays of objects, $ref, or allOf. See https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-11-25/client/elicitation#requested-schema

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYesaccept = the user submitted the form; decline = an explicit no; cancel = dismissed unanswered (including timeout); error = the elicitation failed.
contentYesOn accept, the submitted values keyed by requestedSchema property name; null for every other action.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / message / description
      Added value: +"The instruction shown to the user above the form fields."
    • addedInput schema / properties / requestedSchema / description
      Added value: +"JSON Schema for the form, restricted to the MCP elicitation requestedSchema subset: a flat object whose properties are strings, numbers/integers, booleans, or enums — no nested objects, arrays of objects, $ref, or allOf. See https://modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2025-11-25/client/elicitation#requested-schema"
    • addedInput schema / properties / timeoutSeconds / description
      Added value: +"How long to wait for the answer, in seconds (default 300, clamped 60-3600) — raise it for forms with several fields."
    • changedOutput schema / (root)
      Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+  "$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#",
+  "additionalProperties": false,
+  "properties": {
+    "action": {
+      "description": "accept = the user submitted the form; decline = an explicit no; cancel = dismissed unanswered (including timeout); error = the elicitation failed.",
+      "enum": [
+        "accept",
+        "decline",
+        "cancel",
+        "error"
+      ],
+      "type": "string"
+    },
+    "content": {
+      "anyOf": [
+        {
+          "additionalProperties": {},
+          "propertyNames": {
+            "type": "string"
+          },
+          "type": "object"
+        },
+        {
+          "type": "null"
+        }
+      ],
+      "description": "On accept, the submitted values keyed by requestedSchema property name; null for every other action."
+    }
+  },
+  "required": [
+    "action",
+    "content"
+  ],
+  "type": "object"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimal (openWorldHint false, destructiveHint false), so the description carries some responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about the return shape ('raw {action, content}') and imposes a security constraint against sensitive data. It does not describe cancellation or error behavior, but the output schema likely covers the return contract.

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?

Three sentences with no filler. The primary purpose is first, the sibling alternative is second, and the security prohibition is last. Every sentence earns its place and is tightly scoped.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the three-parameter schema, the output schema, and the annotations, the description gives enough for an agent to call the tool correctly: purpose, return shape, alternative tool, and a critical security constraint. A minor gap is that it does not explain what happens if the user cancels or closes the form, but the output schema likely conveys that via the {action, content} structure.

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%, so the schema already documents message, timeoutSeconds, and requestedSchema thoroughly. The description says 'caller-supplied JSON schema' and mentions returning raw {action, content}, but these mainly restate what the input schema and output schema already express. This matches the baseline 3: the description adds no substantial parameter-level 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?

The description states a specific verb ('Trigger'), the resource ('a form elicitation'), and the key mechanism (caller-supplied JSON schema), and it mentions the return value ('raw {action, content}'). It also distinguishes itself from elicit_confirm in the same senence, so an agent can identify the correct tool without opening the schema.

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?

It gives an explicit alternative: 'For a plain OK/Cancel question, prefer elicit_confirm.' It also provides a clear exclusion boundary: 'MUST NOT be used to request secrets, credentials, or other sensitive information.' This gives the agent concrete when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance beyond the generic title.

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

All Elicitly Pro toolsInspect
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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct roles in the elicitation lifecycle, but elicit_approval's form mode heavily overlaps with elicit_form, and elicit_confirm is explicitly a wrapper over elicit_form, creating real selection ambiguity. Status, await, result, cancel, and history are clearly separated, so the confusion is limited to a couple of closely related tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools share the elicit_ prefix and use snake_case, which makes the namespace predictable and easy to scan. However, the second token mixes nouns (approval, form, proposal, status) with verbs (await, cancel, confirm, ping), and elicit_doctor is a non-obvious metaphor, so the pattern is not perfectly uniform.

Tool Count5/5

Twelve tools is within the ideal scope for a specialized elicitation server: creation variants, status polling, blocking wait, result retrieval, cancellation, history, and diagnostic helpers all have a place. The count feels purposeful rather than padded, and it fits the domain without becoming unwieldy.

Completeness4/5

The lifecycle is well covered: agents can create varied elicitations, check status, block on decisions, fetch results, cancel pending requests, and review history, plus diagnostic and connectivity tools. The main gap is the inability to update or extend a pending elicitation after creation, but agents can work around this by canceling and recreating.

Resources