Skip to main content
Glama

furrow-forms

by com.furrowforms

Create client

create_client
Idempotent

Use to add a client (company) by slug. Idempotent on slug unless strict is true. Operator tokens (all workspaces) must pass team_id from list_teams. Team-scoped tokens may omit team_id and cannot target another workspace. Prefer bootstrap_site when also creating a website and forms. Do not put Turnstile or webhooks on a client — those live on the project.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesClient (company) display name.
slugYesLowercase hyphenated identifier, unique per team. Used for idempotent re-runs.
strictNoWhen true, fail if the slug already exists instead of returning the existing record.
team_idNoTeam id from list_teams. Required for operator tokens and OAuth logins; team-scoped frw_ tokens may omit it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations supply idempotentHint=true, and the description elaborates on the strict flag and slug-based idempotency. It adds operational context about operator vs team-scoped token behavior and the client/project boundary, which goes beyond the structured hints.

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?

Five sentences, each carrying distinct operational information with no filler. Core purpose and alternatives are front-loaded, and the caution about Turnstile/webhooks closes the definition without redundancy.

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 4-parameter creation tool with no output schema, the description covers idempotency, auth requirements, cross-tool selection, and data placement. It does not describe the return value, but the rich schema and annotations already handle most invocation details.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaning by tying slug to idempotency ('Idempotent on slug unless strict is true'), explaining team_id comes from list_teams, and clarifying that team-scoped tokens cannot target another workspace.

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 'Use to add a client (company) by slug', naming a specific verb and resource, and immediately distinguishes this from bootstrap_site. It clearly states the tool's place relative to siblings.

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 'Prefer bootstrap_site when also creating a website and forms', providing a direct alternative condition. It also gives token-scoping rules for when team_id is required, and tells the agent not to put Turnstile/webhooks on a client because those belong on the project.

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

All furrow-forms toolsInspect
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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools are clearly separated by resource and action (get_client vs list_clients vs create_client), and the descriptions explicitly warn against misuse. However, update_account and update_team both cover renaming a workspace/team, and get_account and get_project both return plan/usage/branding, creating a couple of genuinely confusing boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set overwhelmingly follows the snake_case verb_noun pattern: archive_client, create_form, get_submission, list_projects, rotate_project_inbox, test_webhook, etc. Minor deviations exist: bootstrap_site uses 'site' instead of 'project', update_team vs update_account introduces noun inconsistency, and upsert_project_webhook uses a different verb than the update_* family.

Tool Count2/5

With 27 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold that signals a too-large surface for an MCP server. While the broad scope (clients, projects, forms, submissions, teams, billing, webhooks) explains the count, there are redundant near-duplicates like update_account/update_team and bootstrap_site overlapping with multiple create tools, making the set feel bloated rather than curated.

Completeness3/5

The lifecycle coverage for clients, projects, and forms is solid with create, read, list, update, and archive operations. However, there is no unarchive (explicitly noted as unavailable), no submission management beyond read (no delete/export/update), and no webhook delivery history, leaving notable dead ends and gaps in the core workflow.

Resources