forms_listThe account's forms, newest first, with their public links, whether each is taking responses, and their response counts. Free.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "forms_list"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| status | No | any |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: default ordering (newest first) and the returned field set. It does not mention pagination limits or that results are scoped to the account only in passing, leaving those gaps.
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?
A single dense sentence front-loads the resource and ordering, then lists the returned fields. Every clause earns its place except the cryptic 'Free.', which is too terse to convey meaning without context.
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?
With no output schema, the description correctly compensates by describing the returned fields and ordering. However, for a tool with two filtering parameters it omits any mention of how to narrow results, leaving an agent's calling strategy incomplete.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so all semantic burden falls on the description, which never mentions the 'limit' cap (default 50, max 200) or the 'status' enum (open/closed/any). An agent would have to open the schema to discover that it can filter to open forms, a material capability for this tool.
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 names a specific resource (the account's forms) and enumerates what each row carries: public links, accepting-responses flag, and response counts. It is clearly a listing operation, distinguishable from forms_get or forms_list_responses. It stops short of an explicit 'list all forms' verb phrase, but the intent is unambiguous.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus forms_get (single form), forms_summary (aggregate stats), or forms_list_responses (per-form responses). The trailing 'Free.' hints at a cost model but is not explained and gives no selection criteria.
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.