list_formsLists forms in a project. Returns { results: [{ id, name, updatedAt, formSchema { title, fields[{ label, name, type, required, helpText, options }], button } }], pagination: { offset, limit, total } }. Default limit 20. The schema here is abbreviated; get_form returns a form's complete schema. Use to find a formId.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| projectId | Yes | The project ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / limit / maximumAdded value: +100Input schema / properties / limit / minimumAdded value: +1Input schema / properties / limit / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Input schema / properties / offset / maximumAdded value: +9007199254740991Input schema / properties / offset / minimumAdded value: +0Input schema / properties / offset / typePrevious value: -"number"New value: +"integer"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover read-only/non-destructive, and the description adds real value on top: it discloses that the returned schema is abbreviated (and where to get the full one) and that limit defaults to 20. It does not mention ordering guarantees for the listed forms, a small remaining gap.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Front-loaded with purpose, then return shape, then the get_form caveat and the use case. The response-shape block is long but earns its place because there is no output schema; the rest is tight.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With no output schema, the description correctly supplies the return structure including pagination fields, which is what an agent needs. Missing offset/paging guidance for multi-page iteration is the only notable omission for a 3-param list tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 33% — only projectId is documented in the schema. The description restates the default limit of 20 (already in the schema default) but says nothing about offset, pagination semantics, or the max of 100, so it only partially compensates for the coverage gap.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource with scope ("Lists forms in a project") and explicitly contrasts with the sibling get_form for full schemas. An agent can pick between list_forms and get_form without opening either schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
"Use to find a formId" gives a concrete selection criterion, and the get_form pointer names the alternative for the deep-schema case. No explicit when-not-to-use statement, but the routing is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.