Paperform

Search Paperform

search

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search Paperform by name across every space this connection reaches: forms, documents, workflows and folders. Use it to find an item when you know roughly what it is called; use list to browse a space.

Returns { results: [{ id, title, url, view_url, edit_url }] } (at most 20). Pass an id to fetch to read the item, or as parent to list to see what is inside it.

Every form, document and workflow carries two links for the user: view_url, the live public page people open (null for documents and workflows, which have no public page), and edit_url, where the user edits it in Paperform once signed in. url is view_url when there is one, else edit_url. A form also carries submissions_url and duplicate_url. Folders carry url alone, and rows from list with type "document" or "workflow" carry no links: fetch the id for them.

Example: search({ query: "event signup" }) → { "results": [ { "id": "12:form:5f3c9a…", "title": "Event signup", "url": "https://…", "view_url": "https://…", "edit_url": "https://…" } ] }

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`query`	Yes	Words to look for in item names.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`results`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 6, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed world), and the description still adds real behavioral detail: results are capped at 20, view_url is null for documents and workflows, url falls back to edit_url when no public page exists, and list rows of type document/workflow carry no links at all. That null-and-fallback semantics is the kind of thing an agent would otherwise get wrong when composing URLs.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose and the sibling contrast, then result shape, then link semantics, then an example — a sensible order with no filler sentences. It is somewhat long for a one-parameter tool, and the link field-by-field walkthrough and the JSON example partly restate what the existing output schema already defines.

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 single-parameter search with siblings fetch and list, everything an agent needs to call it and act on the result is present: matching scope, result cap, per-type link availability, and where to go next. Nothing material is left to guesswork.

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% for the single query parameter, so the baseline is 3; the description earns an extra point by adding search scope the schema omits — the query matches item names across every space the connection reaches, not within a chosen space. It does not add syntax, tokenization or matching-behavior detail beyond that.

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?

"Search Paperform by name across every space this connection reaches: forms, documents, workflows and folders" gives a specific verb, the matching field (name), the scope (all reachable spaces) and the item types covered. It explicitly contrasts with list ("use list to browse a space"), so an agent can separate this from its closest sibling without opening a schema.

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 the selecting condition directly: use search when you know roughly what the item is called, use list to browse. It also names the downstream routing options — pass an id to fetch to read the item, or as parent to list to see what is inside — so the follow-up path after a result is spelled out rather than inferred.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Paperform tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?