Skip to main content
Glama

vibedeploy

by be.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
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
siteNameYesThe site whose forms-relay config to read.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
notesYes
enabledYes
deliveryYesplatform | verified-domain | verified-domain-pending | custom-relay.
endpointYesURL the site's form should POST to.
siteNameYes
request_idNoServer-assigned request correlation id. Quote it when contacting support.
formsConfigYesStored config (smtpRelay.password redacted to hasPassword).
activeSenderYesThe From that will actually be used right now.
senderDomainNoDNS records to publish + verification status (verified-domain path).

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context about the response format and rate limits for submissions (relevant to the returned endpoint), which goes beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is lengthy and includes extraneous details about submission format (POST JSON, rate limits, honeypot) that are not directly about reading the config. This dilutes the core message and could be more concise.

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 tool's simplicity (one param, read-only) and presence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient detail about what is returned. The submission-related details, while tangential, add context for using the returned endpoint, making it nearly complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the parameter's schema description (siteName is the site to read). The parameter is straightforward, and the description doesn't enhance understanding.

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 explicitly states that it reads the form-to-email relay config of a site, listing specific components (delivery mode, From address, DNS records). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like set_forms_config (write) 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 Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for reading config but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like set_forms_config or verify_forms_sender_domain. The submission details are about the returned endpoint, not about this tool's invocation, providing indirect guidance.

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

All vibedeploy 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from deployment and file management to domain configuration and analytics. Even similar-sounding tools like add_files and add_file_chunk are well-differentiated by context and use case.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using snake_case (e.g., add_custom_domain, list_sites, delete_source_file). The naming is predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count4/5

39 tools is higher than the typical 3-15 range, but each tool serves a necessary function for a comprehensive deployment platform. The count is justified by the broad feature set, though slightly heavy.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle of site deployment, management, backup, custom domains, form handling, analytics, and source editing. There are no obvious gaps for the intended functionality.

Resources