create_formCreate a form and get its endpoint plus a paste-ready HTML snippet. Email notifications to the account owner are set up automatically. Works on every plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | Human-readable form name, e.g. 'Contact form' | |
| purpose | No | What the form is for, in a sentence. Helps the spam classifier. | |
| allowedDomains | No | Sites allowed to submit, e.g. ['example.com']. Empty = any. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose useful behavior: the returned endpoint + HTML snippet, automatic email notifications to the account owner, and no plan gating. However, it omits authorization requirements, duplicate-name behavior, and failure modes for a mutating tool.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return value; no filler. 'Works on every plan' justifies itself by preempting a plan-limit check, though it reads slightly promotional.
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?
For a create tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the primary return value and the notable side effect (automatic notification setup). It is close to sufficient, with auth and error behavior the only real omissions.
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 the schema already documents name, purpose, and allowedDomains with examples. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 ('Create a form') and goes further by naming what the caller receives: an endpoint plus a paste-ready HTML snippet. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like get_form_snippet or update_form, so sibling ambiguity is only partially resolved.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over update_form, get_form, or get_form_snippet, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated. 'Works on every plan' is a constraint removal rather than usage direction.
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.