Skip to main content
Glama

Count submissions

count_submissions
Read-onlyIdempotent

How many submissions match, instead of the submissions themselves. Call this before listing when you do not know how big an answer is, so you can narrow it rather than paging blindly. Takes the same filters as list_submissions. Pass group_by to count by day, week, month, country, spam, read, or field: for a submitted field, and the largest 20 groups come back with the rest in "other". group_by field: is also how you learn what a field holds before filtering on it: the buckets are its distinct values, and a field in filter then selects up to 20 of them. A count that runs out of time returns what it reached with exact false: say so rather than presenting it as the whole number, and narrow the date range for an exact one.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAny field contains this text, matched literally and without case. Use it first when you do not know which field holds the text. On some forms it covers only the fields recent submissions carry, so reach an older field by name with a field filter.
readNo
fieldNoUp to 5 filters keyed by field name, spelled the way the submissions spell it. Each is an object with one of eq, contains, starts_with, exists or in. Several filters combine with AND. Example: {"email": {"contains": "@example.com"}, "plan": {"in": ["pro", "team"]}}.
statusNoinbox
countryNoTwo-letter uppercase country code. For several, separate them with commas, such as "DE,AT,CH". Max 20.
form_idYesForm id, a short string such as "AbC123xyz" (from list_forms).
group_byNoday, week, month, country, spam, read, or field:<name> using a name the submissions carry. Leave it out for the total alone.
created_afterNoRFC 3339 date or time, inclusive.
created_beforeNoRFC 3339 date or time, exclusive.
has_attachmentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds non-obvious behavior: group_by returns only the largest 20 groups with the rest under 'other', field:<name> exposes distinct values for pre-filtering, and timeouts return partial results flagged exact:false. 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?

Every sentence carries a distinct piece of guidance: purpose, when-to-call, filter compatibility, group_by modes, field exploration, and timeout handling. There is no filler and the critical timeout caveat is included.

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?

For a 10-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the count/group semantics, the partial-result caveat, and the relationship to list_submissions. It does not spell out the exact return type, but the behavioral details are sufficient for correct invocation.

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 70% so the baseline is 3, but the description adds real value for group_by by enumerating valid values and explaining the 'other' bucket and field:<name> behavior. It also points to list_submissions for shared filter semantics, though it leaves most individual parameters to the schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description opens with 'How many submissions match, instead of the submissions themselves,' a specific verb+resource statement that clearly differentiates it from list_submissions. The title and description are aligned on the count operation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says when to call it: 'Call this before listing when you do not know how big an answer is, so you can narrow it rather than paging blindly.' It also identifies list_submissions as the filter-compatible sibling and the listing alternative, giving the agent a clear routing rule.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources