Skip to main content
Glama

Read one form's full question catalog, with the reason for each (public)

ic_forms_get
Read-only

The whole definition of one form: every question, its kind (short | long | bool | choice | email | url), whether it is required, the exact options a choice answer must match, and a why saying what the answer is actually used for. THIS IS THE READ-BEFORE-YOU-WRITE TOOL — call it before ic_forms_submit so you answer well instead of guessing, and relay each why to your human rather than deciding for them what a question is really asking. facts carries the program's own terms (things like how long it runs and what it pays) as ordered label/value pairs — read them to your human BEFORE they commit to anything. gates names the questions whose 'no' decides most submissions on its own; a truthful no there is recorded rather than blocking, and beats a flattering yes. TWO DIFFERENT RINGS, and confusing them is the main way an agent misleads its human here: audience is the minimum ring to SUBMIT (often public, meaning anyone at all), while approval_requires_tier is the minimum ring to be APPROVED. Anyone may raise a hand on an open call; being taken can still require membership. Report both, and never tell your human they qualify on the strength of can_submit alone. accepting_submissions is live runtime state, not a property of the definition — a form can be closed between your read and your submit. Args: { form_id }. Returns: { ok, form, can_submit, accepting_submissions, cannot_submit_reason?, required_tier? }. No auth required. An unknown form and a form you may not see return the SAME not_found, on purpose — telling a stranger 'that exists but is not for you' is itself the disclosure.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
form_idYesFrom ic_forms_list. Do not invent one.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already state readOnlyHint=true. The description adds much more: no auth required, identical not_found responses for unknown vs restricted forms, live accepting_submissions state, and the distinction between can_submit and approval_requires_tier. These are important behavioral disclosures not captured by annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and then uniquely critical notices. It uses formatting like bold and intra-description labels to structure the overloaded usage pitfalls. It is longer than necessary in places, but each section contributes to proper agent behavior.

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 provided, the description supplies the return shape and semantics, including the form contents, can_submit, accepting_submissions, and optional reason fields. It also covers error behavior, runtime state caveat, and usage instructions, making the tool self-contained for correct invocation.

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 schema already provides a description for form_id ('From ic_forms_list. Do not invent one.'), so schema coverage is 100%. The description's mention of 'Form: { form_id }' adds no meaningful semantic beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 stands.

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 title and description state a clear, specific action: reading the full definition of one form, including questions, question types, requiredness, choice options, and per-question 'why' purpose. It is explicitly contrastive with the sibling ic_forms_submit as the read-before-write counterpart, making its purpose distinct.

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 explicitly says 'call it before ic_forms_submit' and gives concrete instructions: relay each 'why' to the human, read 'facts' before committing, report both audience and approval_requires_tier, and avoid relying on can_submit alone. This goes beyond implicit context and gives direct 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.

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.