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. The submission format for the site's form is described under set_forms_config.

Input Schema

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

Output 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

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine behavioral context beyond that: what is actually returned (resolved delivery mode, active From address) and the conditional branch where custom sender domains yield DNS records plus verification status. It doesn't mention auth or permission requirements, which keeps it from a 5.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the primary read action and the returned payload, followed by a single routing pointer to the sibling tool. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need not be spelled out, yet the description summarizes them compactly and flags the conditional DNS/verification case. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and a fully documented single parameter, nothing an agent needs to invoke this correctly is missing.

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?

There is a single parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already defines siteName. The description confirms the scope ('of a site') but adds no format or resolution detail beyond the schema, making the baseline 3 correct.

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 ('Read') and resource ('the form-to-email relay config of a site'), then enumerates the concrete payload (delivery mode, active From address, DNS records with verification status). It also names the sibling that owns the related concern (set_forms_config), so an agent can place it precisely among the forms tools.

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?

Usage context is clear: this is the read side of the forms-relay configuration for a given site, and the description routes the agent to set_forms_config for the submission format. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or prerequisite conditions, so it is clear context without exclusions.

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.