foxform_export_responsesExport all responses for a form as CSV text (one row per response, columns = questions). Large exports are truncated — use foxform_list_responses with pagination for very large datasets.
Args:
form_id (string)
Returns: raw CSV text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| form_id | Yes | Form ID |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation as read-only and non-destructive. The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond that: it returns raw CSV text, and it truncates large exports. This is essential for an agent deciding whether this tool is safe and suitable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is compact and well-organized: it opens with the core function, then the truncation caveat, then the args and return value. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with rich annotations and no output schema, the description covers the return format, the key limitation, and the alternative for large datasets. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema already documents form_id with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description merely repeats 'form_id (string)' and does not add meaningful detail about format, constraints, or edge cases beyond what the schema provides.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Export'), a clear resource ('all responses for a form'), and the output format ('CSV text'). It also explains the row/column structure, which distinguishes it from listing or fetching individual responses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly warns that large exports are truncated and directs the agent to use foxform_list_responses with pagination for very large datasets. This gives clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance relative to a relevant sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool pairs a unique action with a unique resource: forms have create/get/update/list/publish/unpublish, responses have list/get/export, and analytics is separate. The only near-overlap (export vs list responses) is explicitly differentiated by truncation and pagination.
All tool names share the foxform_ prefix and follow a strict verb_noun pattern (create_form, list_responses, publish_form). No mixed casing or synonym verbs create ambiguities.
Ten tools is a well-scoped surface for a form management API: form lifecycle, response access, and analytics each have dedicated operations. None feel redundant, and the count stays comfortably within the ideal range.
The core form lifecycle is covered: create, read, update, publish, unpublish, and list. The only notable gap is delete_form (and no response deletion/update), which agents can work around but is still a real missing lifecycle op.