vibedeploy

Get forms-relay config for a site

get_forms_config

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read the form-to-email relay config of a site, plus the resolved delivery mode, the active From address, and (for a custom sender domain) the DNS records to publish and their verification status. Submissions: POST JSON to the returned endpoint with Content-Type: application/json (UTF-8). Flat object of form fields (strings/numbers/booleans; checkbox groups may be arrays of strings, joined with ', '). Max 30 fields, 5000 chars/field, 20000 total. Response: {success:true,data:{ok:true}} or {success:false,error:{code,message}}. Rate limit: 10 submits per IP per 10 minutes. Include a hidden honeypot input (default "_gotcha") and leave it empty.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`siteName`	Yes	The site whose forms-relay config to read.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`notes`	Yes
`enabled`	Yes
`delivery`	Yes	platform \| verified-domain \| verified-domain-pending \| custom-relay.
`endpoint`	Yes	URL the site's form should POST to.
`siteName`	Yes
`formsConfig`	Yes	Stored config (smtpRelay.password redacted to hasPassword).
`activeSender`	Yes	The From that will actually be used right now.
`senderDomain`	No	DNS records to publish + verification status (verified-domain path).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedSep 6, 2026

removedOutput schema / properties / request_id

Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
-  "type": "string"
-}

Changed1 schema field changedJul 20, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / request_id

Added value: +{
+  "description": "Server-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

First observedJun 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description aligns with them. It adds meaningful context about what the config includes (resolved delivery mode, active From address, DNS records/verification status). The submission instructions relate to the returned endpoint rather than this tool's own behavior, but they are clearly labeled as 'Submissions'.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, but the second paragraph spends substantial space on submission limits, response shape, rate limits, and honeypot guidance that are only tangentially related to invoking this read tool. It is structured but not tight.

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?

For a single-parameter read tool with an output schema and read-only annotations, the description provides enough invocation context. It could be complete without the submission-form details, but those details do not make the tool uncallable or underspecified.

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 covers the only parameter 100%, so the baseline applies. The description uses 'site' where the schema says 'siteName' but adds no new parameter semantics 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?

Starts with 'Read the form-to-email relay config of a site' – a specific verb, resource, and scope. It also names the returned config components (delivery mode, From address, DNS records, verification status), separating it from sibling tools like set_forms_config and verify_forms_sender_domain.

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?

The read-only context is clear: use this to obtain a site's forms-relay configuration, not to modify it. It does not explicitly name alternatives such as set_forms_config or verify_forms_sender_domain, so it misses full when-not/alternative guidance.

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

All vibedeploy tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.