list_formsList the forms of the current team. Returned in reverse chronological order of creation, without question content (use get_form for details).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Items per page, default 20, max 100 | |
| scene | No | Filter by scene, optional | |
| titleContains | No | Fuzzy match by title, optional |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | No | The page of forms (newest first) | |
| totalDocs | No | Total forms matching the filter |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / scene / enumPrevious value: -[
- "knowledge_quiz",
- "scored_quiz",
- "outcome_quiz"
-]New value: +[
+ "knowledge_quiz",
+ "scored_quiz",
+ "outcome_quiz",
+ "ai_quiz"
+]Output schema / properties / items / items / properties / scene / descriptionPrevious value: -"knowledge_quiz / scored_quiz / outcome_quiz"New value: +"knowledge_quiz / scored_quiz / outcome_quiz / ai_quiz"Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral detail: results are ordered reverse-chronologically by creation and omit question content, which agents cannot infer from the schema. Pagination behavior is left to the schema's limit field.
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?
Two sentences, zero waste, with the resource scope front-loaded and the ordering/content caveat immediately after. The sibling pointer is placed last, where the agent needs it.
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 annotations covering safety, a 100%-covered schema, and an output schema for return shape, the description only needed to supply ordering and content-scope context, which it does. Minor gap: it never hints that the endpoint is filterable, so an agent skimming only the description might not think to narrow results.
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 description coverage is 100%, so limit, scene, and titleContains are all documented with types, defaults, and enum values. The description adds nothing about the semantics of these filters, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List the forms of the current team') and scopes it to the current team, which distinguishes it from the many form-related siblings such as get_form and list_templates. An agent can tell immediately what this returns.
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?
Explicitly routes the agent to get_form when question content is needed, which is a real alternative with a clear selection condition. It does not discuss when to reach for the filter parameters versus paging through results, so it stops short of full when/when-not coverage.
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.