Superforms

Create Superforms Form

create_form

Publish a voice-first form link immediately after creator confirmation, collect human answers, and pipe responses back to the agent.

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

B3.2/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. The description is a single sentence that conveys the high-level lifecycle ('publish', 'collect', 'pipe back') but omits material behaviors: that confirmation from the creator is a prerequisite step, that the form is voice-first by default, potential side effects like creating a persistent shareable link, or any rate limits/authorization requirements. With 13 parameters and no annotations, this level of transparency is insufficient.

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 description is a single concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose well. However, for a 13-parameter tool with complex workflow semantics and no annotations, the brevity works against it — it fails to earn its space by covering the important operational details that an agent needs to invoke it correctly. Being too short is a deficiency, not a virtue, in this context.

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?

With 13 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, nested objects, and 46% of parameters undocumented in the schema, the description is far too thin. The confirmation-workflow prerequisite, the voice-first nature, the 'smart follow-ups' semantics present in the schema, and the distinction from similar creation tools are all absent. The single sentence provides only the most surface-level picture and is inadequate for correct invocation of this complex tool.

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 54%, and 6 of 13 parameters lack descriptions (goal, title, persistent, responseMode, questionContext, creationSessionUrl). The description itself adds NO parameter-level information whatsoever — it is entirely about the tool's overall function. The schema does have useful guidance for key params (questions, followUpMode, responseLimit), but the uncovered parameters remain undocumented by both schema and description, and the description doesn't compensate for those gaps.

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 the verb ('Publish a voice-first form link') and the resource ('form'), and its outcome ('collect human answers, pipe responses back to agent'). It distinguishes itself as a 'voice-first' form creation tool among siblings, and implies the confirmation/approval workflow. However, it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like create_ask or create_feedback_form, leaving some ambiguity about when each is preferred.

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 description provides clear context on the workflow: 'immediately after creator confirmation' and 'pipe responses back to the agent'. This gives the agent a sense of when the tool is intended to be invoked. However, it gives no explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives (e.g., when to prefer create_ask or create_feedback_form instead), leaving the agent to infer boundaries among sibling tools.

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?