Skip to main content
Glama

Get a FoxForm form

foxform_get_form
Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a single form by ID, including its full question list, per-screen conditional logic and settings.

Args:

  • form_id (string): the form's ID (from foxform_list_forms)

  • response_format ('markdown' | 'json')

Returns { form, public_url }: the full form object (id, title, description, slug, status, theme, questions[], thank_you_message, timestamps, plus format and — when set — sections, chatbot_skin, chatbot_profile) plus public_url — the public link (https://forms.foxform.app/<slug>), which is live only when status is 'published'. Use public_url verbatim; never build the URL yourself (the public domain is forms.foxform.app, not foxform.app). Each screen in questions[] carries its own logic (branching / conditional display) and, for choice screens, choices[]/images[] with their points and value. The markdown output summarises every rule; use response_format 'json' to get the exact stored objects (that's the shape foxform_update_form expects back).

Form format (DEVF-296 / DEVF-322): pass format to choose how the form is presented.

  • 'single_question' (default): one screen at a time (classic).

  • 'single_page': every screen on one scrollable page. Optionally group screens into pages with sections: [{ id }] in order (the 'Section N' label comes from position; no editable title).

  • 'chatbot': an Instagram/WhatsApp DM-style conversation. Set chatbot_skin ('instagram' | 'whatsapp', default instagram) and chatbot_profile (all fields optional, each with a fallback). The question/branching engine is unchanged — only the presentation differs. These fields require the account's form-format feature to be enabled (live in production); when off the API ignores them and the form stays single_question.

CONDITIONAL LOGIC (branching), per screen — stored in questions[].logic:

logic.conditionalNavigationV2 = { enabled: true, groups: [ // groups are OR-joined; FIRST matching group wins { id: "grp-1", conditions: [ // conditions inside a group are AND-joined { id: "cond-1", left: "{{quer_testar}}", operator: "equal_to", right: "Ainda não" } ], then: { type: "specific_screen", targetScreenId: "s-motivos" } } ] }

  • then.type: 'next_screen' | 'previous_screen' | 'specific_screen' (needs targetScreenId = another screen's id) | 'end_form'. Add then.url (+ optional openNewTab) to redirect to an external URL instead.

  • operator: 'equal_to' | 'not_equal_to' | 'greater_than' | 'greater_or_equal_than' | 'less_than' | 'less_or_equal_than' | 'contains'.

  • left/right are EXPRESSION strings: a literal ("10", "Ainda não"), a variable ("{{score}}", "{{minha_var}}" = the screen's variableName), or arithmetic ("calc({{peso}}/(({{altura}}/100)*({{altura}}/100)))").

  • Comparing an ANSWER: use left: "{{<variableName of the deciding screen>}}" and right = the option's label OR its value (both match).

  • {{score}} is the running sum of points on the options picked so far (choices[].points, images[].points) — that is how score-based branching works.

  • A navigation group with no conditions NEVER matches. enabled: false stores the rules but disables them.

  • Screen-level conditional display uses the same group shape: logic.display = { enabled: true, groups: [...], showAfterSeconds?: n } (then is ignored — THEN means "show").

  • Other logic keys: logic.autoAdvance = { enabled, delaySeconds? }, logic.navigationBehavior = { onButtonClick?, onAutoAdvance?, targetScreenId? }.

  • logic.conditionalNavigation (legacy, pre-DEVF-161) is still read and migrated on load — don't author new rules with it.

Unknown fields are REJECTED (they used to be stored and silently ignored): logic as an array, or rules/branching/conditions/goto/jump/nextScreen anywhere, are not read by any renderer.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYesForm ID
response_formatNoOutput format: 'markdown' (human-readable) or 'json' (machine-readable)markdown

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark this readOnly/idempotent, and the description goes well beyond them: it details the return structure, warns that public_url is only live when status is 'published', tells the agent never to build the URL manually, explains feature-flag gating of format fields, and documents that unknown fields are rejected. This is rich, non-obvious behavioral context.

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?

The description is long, but it is well-structured with clear headers, lists, and a logical flow from purpose to args to returns to format variants to conditional-logic details. Some sections (e.g., exhaustive logic documentation) go deeper than strictly needed for a fetch operation, but each part serves interpreting the returned form object.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values — and it does so thoroughly: full object shape, public_url behavior, format variants, conditional logic structure, legacy fields, and rejection semantics. Nothing needed to call or interpret the tool correctly 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%, but the description adds real value: it tells where to obtain form_id (from foxform_list_forms) and explains the practical difference between markdown and json outputs, including that json returns the exact shape update_form expects. That goes beyond the schema's bare descriptions.

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 opens with 'Fetch a single form by ID, including its full question list, per-screen conditional logic and settings' — a specific verb, resource, and scope. This clearly distinguishes it from list_forms (fetching all) and update_form (mutating).

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?

It states the form_id comes from foxform_list_forms and explains when to choose response_format 'json' (when the exact stored object shape is needed for foxform_update_form). It doesn't explicitly list exclusions versus other sibling tools, but the retrieval purpose is unmistakable and the formatting guidance is actionable.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources