Skip to main content
Glama

furrow-forms

by com.furrowforms

Update account

update_account
Idempotent

Use to rename the workspace or set branding. Free accounts cannot set branding.mode or email.footer_mode to anything but furrow — those writes are ignored. Yearly may set branding.mode to furrow, off, or agency (name + optional link + optional logo; Furrow keeps the layout, no raw HTML). 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. 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 this to change the plan — call create_upgrade_link.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoNew workspace display name.
team_idNoTeam id from list_teams. Required for operator tokens and OAuth logins; team-scoped frw_ tokens may omit it.
brandingNoAccount-wide branding for notification emails and hosted pages.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Discloses important runtime behaviors: ignored writes for free accounts, plan-dependent allowed modes, and operator/team-scoped token requirements. The annotation layer only provides readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=true, so this description carries genuine extra weight; minor detraction for referencing email.footer_mode, which is not part of the input schema.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The first sentence front-loads the purpose and later sentences cover restrictions and alternatives. However, roughly half the text is plan-pricing and feature detail (e.g., submissions/month, retention, webhooks, Turnstile) that is not needed to invoke this tool, making it longer than ideal.

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?

Covers the nested branding semantics, plan constraints, auth requirements, limits on what can be changed, and explicitly routes plan changes to a sibling tool. Even without an output schema, an agent has enough to call update_account correctly.

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%, and the description still adds meaning: name means rename, branding.mode is gated by plan, agency supports name/link/logo, and team_id is required for operator tokens. It goes beyond the field descriptions without replacing them.

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?

States the exact operations: rename workspace or set branding, with account as the resource. It also includes an explicit negative directive — 'Do not use this to change the plan — call create_upgrade_link' — which differentiates it from the upgrade sibling.

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?

Names the alternative tool (create_upgrade_link) and the conditions for using it, including expansion packs. It also specifies token-based rules for when team_id is required versus optional, so the agent knows exactly when this tool is appropriate.

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