Superforms

Create Feedback Form

create_feedback_form

Publish a voice-first feedback, cancellation, feature request, survey, or research form immediately after creator confirmation, with optional smart follow-ups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`goal`	No
`title`	No
`prompt`	No	Plain-English ask or request. Use only when explicit questions are not already known.
`context`	No	Private context for smart follow-ups. Summarize relevant non-sensitive host-conversation context and append any extra context the creator provides. Never shown to respondents.
`questions`	No	Explicit questions to ask the respondent. Use this whenever questions already exist; preserve them exactly.
`persistent`	No
`followUpMode`	No	For exactly one question, set this only after asking the creator "Want smart follow-up questions?" Use deep_dive for yes or none for no. For multiple questions, use none unless explicitly requested.
`responseMode`	No
`responseLimit`	No	Use "one" for a form intended for one named person/client. Use "multiple" for forms, surveys, feedback, customers, users, and public/embedded links.
`questionContext`	No
`creationSessionUrl`	No
`max_total_questions`	No	Optional compatibility setting. Omit for adaptive one-question smart follow-ups.
`max_followups_per_question`	No	Optional compatibility setting. Omit for adaptive one-question smart follow-ups.

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does mention 'immediately after creator confirmation' and 'optional smart follow-ups', which are useful behavioral traits. However, it doesn't disclose side effects (persistent forms, publishing implications), auth/permission needs, or whether publication is reversible. Partial coverage of a tool that clearly has side effects.

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 a single efficient sentence that conveys the core purpose and key characteristics. It's appropriately concise without waste. Could arguably be front-loaded more clearly but overall it's tight.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

This is a complex tool: 13 parameters, nested objects, conditional enums (followUpMode depends on creator response), and no output schema. The description covers none of the setup flow, prerequisites, or conditional logic that many schema descriptions hint at (e.g., followUpMode requires asking the creator first). For a tool this multi-faceted with no annotations and no output schema, the description is notably under-specified.

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 54%, so the description needs to compensate significantly. The description mentions key concepts (voice-first, smart follow-ups, creator confirmation) but doesn't explain most of the 13 parameters (goal, title, persistent, responseMode, creationSessionUrl, questionContext have no schema descriptions). The high parameter count with only 54% coverage means much is left undocumented. However, several schema-level descriptions (followUpMode, responseLimit, questions) are quite detailed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states it publishes voice-first feedback/cancellation/feature request/survey/research forms after creator confirmation. It's specific about verb (publish), resource (feedback forms), and timing (after creator confirmation). However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling create_form or create_ask — the relation to those tools is unclear.

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 ('immediately after creator confirmation') but offers no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives. With siblings like create_form and create_ask existing, there's no guidance on when to pick this over them. The schema descriptions help somewhat but not in the description text itself.

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

All Superforms tools Inspect

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

B3.2/5.0

Disambiguation3/5

There is clear overlap between several tools: create_ask is explicitly a backward-compatible alias for create_form, making them nearly indistinguishable. get_my_form_responses vs get_responses and watch_my_form_responses vs watch_ask also serve similar purposes with only subtle differences (form ownership vs generic ask). The creation session tools (join_creation_session, update_creation_session) and creation tools (create_form, create_feedback_form) have moderately clear boundaries but could confuse agents about when to use session tools vs direct creation.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming mostly follows a verb_noun pattern (create_form, list_asks, watch_ask) and many share a consistent 'my_' prefix for owned resources. However, the aliasing (create_ask), the distinction between 'ask' and 'form' terminology, and create_feedback_form vs create_form introduce inconsistency in domain vocabulary. Watch_ask vs watch_my_form_responses and get_responses vs get_my_form_responses use parallel but not fully consistent naming.

Tool Count4/5

11 tools is a reasonable count for a form lifecycle server. However, three tools are essentially redundant aliases or near-duplicates (create_ask, get_responses, and possibly watch_ask given HTTP bridge equivalents), which could be consolidated. The count is not excessive or too thin, but the effective surface is smaller than 11 distinct tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers creation (create_form, create_feedback_form), listing (list_asks, list_my_forms), reading responses (get_responses, get_my_form_responses), and real-time watching (watch_ask, watch_my_form_responses). However, there is no tool for updating or deleting existing forms, and no tool for closing/archiving a form. The creation-session tools are present but lack a corresponding read/view for drafts. The domain is form lifecycle, and update/delete operations for published forms are notable gaps.

Resources

Need Help?