Skip to main content
Glama

furrow-forms

by com.furrowforms

Get form snippet

get_snippet
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use after the form exists to get copy-paste html, astro, or next code that posts to /s/:publicKey. Do not invent a submit URL — this tool returns it. Snippets are single-value inputs; write checkbox groups and multi-selects yourself. Checkbox groups, select multiple, and other multi-value HTML fields must use a [] suffix on the name (name="services[]") or only the last checked value is stored. Put services[] on field_contract.name too. JSON/fetch should send a real array without brackets ({ "services": ["a", "b"] }) and must not use Object.fromEntries(formData) — use formData.getAll("services"). Single checkbox, select, or combobox: no brackets. File inputs use multipart POST (name="resume[]" for multiple). Enable uploads on the project first. Downloads are the project inbox at files_url, with the form slug as a folder — never put that URL in a public snippet. After dropping the snippet, add visitor-facing success UI: a thank-you page plus default_redirect_url for classic HTML POST, or an on-page message when using fetch/{ok:true}. Do not leave visitors looking at JSON. See furrow://docs/submit-success.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYesForm id from list_forms, create_form, or bootstrap_site.
frameworkYesSnippet flavor: html (plain form), astro (component), or next (React client component).

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those: it returns generated code containing the submit endpoint, does not require inventing a URL, has single-value snippet limitations, and requires manual handling of multi-value fields. This meaningfully supplements the annotations without contradicting them.

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 long but every sentence carries actionable information, and the core purpose is front-loaded. It could be improved by breaking the caveats into clearer sections, but there is minimal filler or repetition.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description does an excellent job explaining what the snippet contains, how to handle multi-value fields, file uploads, success UI, and a security caveat about the inbox URL. An agent has enough context to call the tool and use the result correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, with form_id and framework already described. The description adds context about 'Use after the form exists' and the resulting endpoint, but it does not substantially reinterpret the two parameters. The framework enum values are already explained in the schema, so the description adds only marginal parameter-level value.

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 and resource: 'get copy-paste html, astro, or next code that posts to /s/:publicKey.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from get_form, get_submission, and other sibling getters by focusing on snippet generation rather than retrieving stored records.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description states a clear precondition ('Use after the form exists') and gives detailed guidance about how the returned snippet should be used, including when to use brackets, multipart POST, and redirect/success UI. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but no direct sibling alternative exists, and the usage context is concrete and unambiguous.

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