Skip to main content
Glama

furrow-forms

by com.furrowforms

List projects

list_projects
Read-onlyIdempotent

Use to browse websites. Pass client_id to list one client's sites (team is inferred). Without client_id, Operator tokens (all workspaces) must pass team_id from list_teams. Team-scoped tokens may omit team_id and cannot target another workspace. Do not use to read one project's settings — call get_project. Archived projects are hidden unless status=all or archived.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoPage size, max 100.
cursorNoOpaque cursor from the previous page's next_cursor.
statusNoFilter by archive state. Defaults to active.
team_idNoTeam id from list_teams. Required for operator tokens and OAuth logins; team-scoped frw_ tokens may omit it.
client_idNoOnly projects under this client.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent. The description adds useful behavior beyond those annotations: archived projects are hidden unless status=all or archived, team inference happens when client_id is passed, and team-scoped tokens cannot target another workspace.

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?

Four compact sentences carry purpose, exclusions, token rules, and archive filtering without wasted words. The primary use is front-loaded and every sentence adds a distinct operational rule.

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?

For a five-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description is complete enough: it covers purpose, parameter selection, token scoping, archive default, and the alternative tool. Pagination mechanics are already covered by the cursor and limit schema descriptions.

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. The description adds meaning by explaining the relationship between client_id and team_id, the token-type requirements, and the status default behavior. This goes beyond the schema's field-level descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool lists projects/sites for browsing and explicitly contrasts itself with get_project for reading a single project's settings. This distinguishes it from a sibling tool without requiring the agent to open schemas.

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?

The description gives concrete guidance: pass client_id for one client's sites, use team_id from list_teams for operator tokens, and let team-scoped tokens omit team_id. It also states an explicit when-not: 'Do not use to read one project's settings — call get_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