Skip to main content
Glama

furrow-forms

by com.furrowforms

Get project

get_project
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to inspect one website's settings, domains, webhook URL, email templates, upload policy, plan, usage this month, limits, retention_days, and branding. Returns stored values plus resolved.email. Secrets are never returned. Plans are capacity, not a feature ladder. Free: one workspace, 100 clean submissions/month pooled on the team, 3 active (non-archived) projects, 30-day submission retention, and email.footer_mode / branding.mode stay furrow. Yearly ($199/year): extra workspaces, 10,000 submissions/month, unlimited projects, 730-day retention, branding.mode furrow | off | agency. Expansion packs are $99/year each and add 5,000 submissions/month on a yearly account. MCP, webhooks, snippets, inheritance, Turnstile, and email templates stay available on free. Spam, honeypot, and rejected posts do not count. Use create_upgrade_link to hand a human a Stripe Checkout (or Customer Portal) URL. Pass product=expansion on a yearly team to add a pack. Do not use to list forms — call list_forms.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
project_idYesProject (website) id from list_projects, create_project, or bootstrap_site.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds valuable behavioral context: 'Secrets are never returned', 'Returns stored values plus resolved.email', and clarifies how plan limits and usage counts behave. This goes well beyond the annotation baseline.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and return values, and the alternative-tool guidance is useful. However, it is quite lengthy due to detailed plan/pricing explanations that go beyond what is needed to select or invoke the tool.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool returns, what it never returns, and the meaning of plan/usage values an agent may encounter. The single parameter is fully specified in the schema, and the read-only/idempotent behavior is reinforced by annotations.

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 single parameter project_id is fully described in the schema (format UUID, source from list_projects/create_project/bootstrap_site), so schema coverage is 100%. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but none is needed given the complete 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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'inspect one website's settings' and enumerates the exact fields returned. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly saying 'Do not use to list forms — call list_forms', making the scope unmistakable.

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 states clearly when to use the tool ('Use to inspect one website's settings') and names an alternative for a different need ('Do not use to list forms — call list_forms'). It also routes upgrade-related needs to create_upgrade_link, giving concrete when-to-use guidance.

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