Superforms

Watch Superforms Ask

watch_ask

Read-onlyIdempotent

Return as soon as an individual answer is saved, including answers received while an agent was reconnecting and while the form remains in progress. Use since for durable per-answer catch-up; the HTTP bridge also exposes an SSE stream endpoint.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`url`	Yes
`askId`	No
`since`	No	ISO timestamp cursor from the last response the agent processed.
`timeoutMs`	No	Maximum wait in milliseconds, capped at 120000.
`agentToken`	Yes

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish this as a safe, read-only, idempotent operation. The description adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by explaining it returns answers collected during agent reconnection and while the form is still in progress. It also clarifies the durable catch-up semantics of 'since'. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose, and every sentence adds value. The first sentence gives the core behavior, the second provides parameter guidance and an alternative endpoint. No waste.

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?

The description covers the essential behavior and the meaning of 'since', but it does not explain timeout behavior, error cases, or what exactly is returned beyond 'an individual answer'. Given the tool's complexity and the lack of an output schema, it is reasonably complete but leaves some operational details unspecified.

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?

The schema description coverage is only 40%, so the description should compensate. It does add meaning to 'since' ('durable per-answer catch-up'), but it does not explain 'url', 'askId', or 'agentToken' beyond what their names imply. The description partially bridges the gap but not fully, making this a 3.

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 core action ('Return as soon as an individual answer is saved') and adds specific context about reconnection and in-progress forms. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling tool 'watch_my_form_responses' by noting that this is for asks, not form responses, so it's not a 5.

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?

Provides some usage guidance: 'Use since for durable per-answer catch-up' and mentions the SSE stream endpoint as an alternative. But it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over get_responses or watch_my_form_responses, leaving the usage context partially implied rather than explicit.

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?