Create a new application form, optionally attaching existing questions by ID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Form name. | |
| questions | No | Array of question IDs to attach to this form. | |
| company_id | No | Target company ID. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false). The description adds that attaching questions is optional, which provides some behavioral context beyond the annotations. However, it does not disclose what happens if invalid question IDs are provided or whether the form is immediately active.
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?
The description is a single sentence of 14 words that is front-loaded with the action and resource. Every word serves a purpose, with no redundancy or fluff.
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?
The description is adequate for a simple create tool with three parameters and no output schema. However, it does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., the created form object) or the role of 'company_id' (optional but not described). The context is somewhat complete given the low complexity, but these gaps reduce completeness.
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?
The schema covers all three parameters with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining that the 'questions' parameter is for attaching existing question IDs, clarifying its optional nature. The meaning of 'company_id' is not elaborated, but with 100% schema coverage, the description provides useful extra context.
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 clearly states the action ('Create a new application form') and the resource ('application form'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'hires_create_question' (creates individual questions) and 'hires_update_form' (updates existing forms) by specifying that it creates a new form and optionally attaches existing questions.
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?
The description implies that the tool is used for creating forms, optionally with attached questions, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'hires_update_form' or 'hires_create_question'. No guidance on prerequisites or when to avoid using it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
