Skip to main content
Glama

check_form

Read-only

See what a form's HTML and CSS would be saved as, without saving: the cleaned HTML and CSS, and what was removed. Use it before save_form.

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": {
      "product_id": "<product_id>",
      "html": "<html>"
    },
    "name": "check_form"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
cssNoThe form's CSS. It applies inside the form only. No @import and no backslashes.
htmlYesThe form's HTML. Layout and form tags only; mark the parts with data-help (get_form lists them). Scripts, images, inline styles and handlers are removed.
product_idYesThe site's id (a uuid), from list_products.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / css / type
      Previous value: -[
      -  "string",
      -  "null"
      -]New value: +"string"
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds that the output includes the cleaned HTML/CSS plus what was removed — valuable context with no output schema. It stops short of describing failure behavior or how removals are reported.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence for the outcome, one short directive for sequencing, both front-loaded with zero filler. Nothing repeated from the title or schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a three-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, return content and sequencing. Only incidental details, such as what happens on invalid input, are absent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so product_id, html and css are already documented, including the removal rules for html. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema supplies, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

States a specific verb and resource — preview the cleaned HTML and CSS a form would be saved as — and explicitly frames it as a non-saving dry run. This clearly separates it from save_form and publish_form among the siblings.

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?

Explicitly directs 'Use it before save_form', naming the alternative and the condition that selects it. The 'without saving' phrasing also clarifies when not to reach for the mutating sibling.

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.

Resources